calendar_rsvp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core mutation (changing RSVP status) but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the organizer is notified), permissions required, idempotency, or potential errors. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation support.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and contains zero filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 simple RSVP tool, the description is minimally viable, but it lacks critical contextual information such as prerequisites (user must be invited) and behavioral side effects. Given no output schema and no annotations, a bit more context about expected results or preconditions would improve completeness. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters clearly. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely repeats the enum values in natural language. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Respond to a Google Calendar invitation') and the three response options (accept, decline, tentatively accept). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendar_update_event (which modifies event details) and calendar_get_event (which reads). However, it does not explicitly contrast with these siblings, so it misses the highest level of differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does without explaining prerequisites (e.g., must be an invitation recipient) or when to prefer it over calendar_update_event. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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