follow_calendar_event

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: the event appears as ShowAs=Free and the organizer is not notified. However, the schema description for the 'comment' parameter says the comment is included in a follow notification to the organizer, directly contradicting the claim that the organizer is not notified. This severe inconsistency undermines trust in the described behavior. Since no annotations exist, the description must be accurate, and it fails.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. It uses three short sentences that each add distinct information (action, calendar effect, non-notification, Outlook emulation). No filler. Score 5.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover prerequisites, result format, reversibility, and side effects. It explains the key side effects (ShowAs=Free, no notification) but omits what happens on success, whether the action can be undone, and any permission requirements. The contradiction with the comment parameter further undermines completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description of the 'comment' parameter ('Optional message included in the follow notification to the organizer') directly conflicts with the tool description's 'organizer is NOT notified'. This makes the parameter semantics confusing and misleading. The tool description itself adds no further clarification for parameters, so the score is reduced to 2.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Follow a calendar event') and immediately distinguishes it from formal RSVPing. It mentions key effects (ShowAs=Free, no organizer notification) and ties to a known Outlook feature, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies when to use it: when you want to follow an event without committing to an RSVP. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like respond_to_calendar_event but contrasts with 'formally RSVPing', which is sufficient context. No explicit exclusions are given, but the context is clear.

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