respond_to_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation (updates RSVP status), the default side-effect (sends a notification to the organizer), how to suppress it (send_response=false), the return behavior (confirmation message), and error conditions (event ID not found or response unavailable). This is thorough and goes beyond what a tool name alone would imply.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, notification behavior, return message, and prerequisite/error handling. It's front-loaded with the main action and stays tightly focused without extraneous detail.

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 mutation tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key contextual needs: what the tool does, what side effects occur, what success returns, and what failure looks like. The 'use get_event first' guidance situates it within the event workflow relative to siblings. No further detail is necessary.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the send_response default and event_id source, but these are already in the schema. It adds the error scenario tied to event_id, but that's more about behavior than parameter meaning. No significant extra parameter insight beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Respond to a meeting invitation with accept, decline, or tentative.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create_event or update_event by focusing on the RSVP action. The mention of updating the RSVP status in Outlook reinforces the tool's unique role.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Use get_event first to review the event details before responding,' providing a clear prerequisite. It doesn't name alternatives or conditions when not to use, but the instruction to review first is a solid guideline. An explicit alternative (e.g., 'For modifying event details, use update_event instead') would elevate to a 5.

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