evite_remove_guest

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint:false, signaling a write operation. The description adds valuable transparency by explaining the confirm-gated dry-run behavior, which is not apparent from annotations. It does not cover all nuances (e.g., reversibility, permissions), but the core behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the confirm-gating mechanism. No filler, every sentence earns its place.

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 relatively simple mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical confirm-gated behavior and draft-only scope. It does not specify the return value on success or error handling, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity and the clear schema.

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%, with each parameter already documented (event_id, guest_id, confirm) including the confirm gating. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('draft guest from an Evite event'), distinguishing it from siblings like evite_update_guest and evite_add_guest. The scope restriction to 'draft (un-sent)' guests makes it unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context: it is for removing draft guests and requires confirm:true to actually execute; otherwise it's a dry-run. It does not explicitly mention alternatives for non-draft guests, but the draft-only scope implies the use case. No misleading guidance.

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