respond_to_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., notifications sent), authorization requirements, or what happens after RSVP. The presence of a 'password' parameter suggests authentication needs but is unexplained.

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 (one sentence plus an inline code snippet). It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, missing parameter details.

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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the meaning of parameters, expected input formats, or return values, making it difficult for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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%, so the description must explain all parameters. It only mentions the 'response' parameter's valid values. The other 6 parameters (event_id, calendar_id, comment, send_updates, account, password) are not described, leaving the agent unaware of their purpose.

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 verb 'RSVP' and the resource 'event you're invited to', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_event, update_event, etc. It also specifies the valid responses (accepted, declined, tentative).

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 that this tool is for events you are invited to. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling tool list implies that update_event is for changing event details.

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