remove_event_invitation

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint: false. The description adds idempotency and clarifies that other events' invitations are preserved. It does not discuss error handling for conflicting parameter usage or permissions, but the added context is sufficient.

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 purpose, followed by parameter usage and additional behavior. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameter usage, and behavioral traits. It lacks any mention of return value or error states, but for a non-destructive, idempotent operation, this is a minor gap.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, and the description adds significant value by explaining the distinction between 'guest_group_id' (removes for all in group) and 'guest_id' (removes for single guest) and the requirement to pass exactly one.

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 ('remove an event invitation') and the resource ('for a single guest or guest group'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'invite_guest_to_event' and 'remove_guest' by specifying it removes only invitations, not guests entirely.

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 explicit guidance on which parameter to use ('pass exactly one of guest_group_id or guest_id') and notes that other events' invitations are preserved. It implicitly tells when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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