Add attendees

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

The description discloses key behavioral detail beyond the annotations: "Existing attendees are kept; the new addresses are appended." It also explains the meaning of send_notifications. While annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, the append behavior is useful extra context that helps an agent predict side effects.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then structured as a clean Args list. Each line adds value: behavioral semantics, parameter meanings, defaults, and source hints. There is no filler or repetition.

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 moderate complexity (5 params, 2 required) and the availability of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the operation, side-effect behavior, parameter sourcing, default behavior for notifications, and account selection. No critical information needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining all five parameters: event_id, attendee_emails, calendar_id, send_notifications, and account. It adds practical guidance such as where to obtain event_id and when to omit account. This fully covers the gap left by the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: "Invite one or more people to an existing event." This clearly distinguishes it from event creation, movement, deletion, and response tools among the siblings. The title and description align, and the scope is immediately recognizable.

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 clearly states this tool is for adding attendees to an existing event, which implies a use case distinct from create_event or quick_add_event. It also gives practical guidance like using event_id from find_events and omitting account for the default. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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