rsvp_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that it 'sets your participation status and sends a reply to the organizer,' which implies a write operation and communication side effect. However, it doesn't mention any potential consequences (e.g., whether the reply is sent to all attendees, if there are any restrictions on changing status, or if there's a confirmation step). The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear one-sentence purpose, then adds a brief note about the side effect (sending a reply), and finally provides specific guidance for recurring events. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fairly complete. It covers the main action, the side effect, and the special case of recurring events. It could mention whether the tool is idempotent or if there are any prerequisites (e.g., must be an invitee), but for a simple RSVP tool, this is sufficient.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters: 'id' is described as 'The event ID to RSVP to, as returned by search_events' and 'status' is described with the allowed values. The description adds context about recurring events (occurrence id vs series id) but doesn't add much beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, a 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 purpose: 'Respond to a calendar event invitation' and specifies the action of setting participation status and sending a reply to the organizer. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_event, update_event, and delete_event by focusing on the RSVP action.

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 context on when to use this tool (responding to an invitation) and includes specific guidance for recurring events, explaining how to handle occurrences vs. the whole series. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for most cases.

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