evite_rsvp

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

The description mentions the dry-run preview and confirm gate, which goes beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation. However, this information is almost entirely duplicated from the schema's confirm parameter description, so the added value is minimal. It adds a small clarification that nothing is sent without confirm, which is useful.

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?

Two sentences, first states purpose, second states the critical behavioral gate. Very concise and front-loaded; no wasted words.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and the most subtle usage pattern (confirm gating). It doesn't describe return values or error behavior, but no output schema exists and the schema documents parameters well. For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, it is reasonably complete, though it could mention what a successful RSVP does (e.g., updates guest status).

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%, with all seven parameters described in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 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 function with a specific verb 'RSVP' and a resource 'a guest on an Evite event'. It distinguishes from siblings like evite_rsvp_summary by focusing on the action of responding rather than summarizing. The title is consistent and the purpose is 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 confirm-gated behavior is explicitly described: without confirm:true, it returns a dry-run preview and sends nothing. This tells the agent when it is safe to invoke without side effects. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list and names make the context clear.

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