tentatively-accept-calendar-event

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description correctly implies a write operation. It adds context about proposing new times but does not disclose any other behavioral traits beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two paragraphs and a tip, but the tip slightly repeats information from the first paragraph. Overall efficient without unnecessary fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain the return value or expected response. It also references an external resource ('Propose new meeting times') without sufficient detail, leaving gaps in understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaningful examples and clarifies the optional body parameter, including SendResponse, Comment, and ProposedNewTime. This adds value beyond the schema, which has some but not all descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Tentatively accept the specified event in a user calendar', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'accept-calendar-event' and 'decline-calendar-event' by emphasizing the tentative nature and the proposal feature.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use the proposedNewTime parameter (when the event allows proposals) but does not explicitly contrast with accept or decline. It implies the tool is for tentative responses, providing clear context without exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.