rsvp_event

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is expected. The description adds valuable behavioral context by revealing the endpoint POST /v2/rsvpEvent and the constraint that response_status must NOT be needsAction, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying essential information: the action, the trigger condition, the endpoint, the critical constraint, and optional parameters. No filler or 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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the most important behavioral details and constraints. It does not explain user_time_zone's purpose, but that parameter is optional and fairly self-explanatory, so the gap is minor.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for key parameters: response_status allowed values, the required non-needsAction constraint, optional comment behavior, and counter_proposal_json's {start,end} shape. Other parameters like account_id, calendar_id, and event_id are self-evident from their schema titles.

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 and resource: 'RSVP to an event invite', then lists the allowed response statuses (accepted|declined|tentative). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling event tools like create_event, update_events, or get_event.

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?

It explicitly states when to call: 'Call when the user wants to respond to an invitation.' It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the trigger condition is clear and sufficient for most agents.

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