Rechazar invitación a reunión

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

Annotations provide baseline safety info (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the detail that it operates on the invitation message's ItemId, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether a decline response is sent to the organizer or what happens to the calendar event. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It communicates the action, resource, and input method efficiently, earning the maximum score.

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 low complexity (2 params, full schema coverage, annotations present), the description provides sufficient context. It lacks explicit details about return values or side effects, but these are not strictly necessary for such a simple mutation tool. Slight elevation from 3 because the description clarifies the specific input identifier type, making it more complete than a generic 'declines an invitation'.

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 both parameters already described in the schema. The description only minimally reinforces the meaning of eventId (por ItemId del mensaje de invitación) without adding substantial new information, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Rechaza') and resource ('invitación de reunión'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like accept_event, delete_event, and update_event. It also specifies the input method (por ItemId del mensaje de invitación), making the tool's purpose 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 implies usage context (declining a received meeting invitation) and specifies the required identifier type (ItemId of the invitation message). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from accept_event or delete_event, nor does it mention any preconditions or when not to use this tool, which would merit a 5.

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