Ответ на приглашение

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

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond the annotations: response overwrites previous ones, is visible to all participants, unclear response values cause errors, and the tool automatically waits/retries on Kairos's 5-second rate limit. These details provide critical operational context that annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) do not cover.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is structured into short paragraphs for purpose, parameter semantics, and rate limits. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing nuance.

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 complexity, an output schema exists, and the description covers all essential aspects: usage, parameter meanings, overwrite/visibility behavior, and rate limiting. It provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing to consult external documentation.

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 compensate. It does so effectively by explaining accepted values for 'response' (e.g., 'пойду/да/Accept') and that 'comment' is optional text to the organizer. The 'appointment_id' parameter is not described, but its meaning is self-evident from the name and context.

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 'Ответить на приглашение' (respond to an invitation) and lists the three possible responses ('пойду'/'не пойду'/'может быть'). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendar_cancel or calendar_schedule, making the 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 provides clear usage context: the response is visible to the organizer and participants, and it instructs the agent to show the user the meeting name and chosen response before calling. It also addresses the rate limit by noting that consecutive responses are normal. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to alternative tools like calendar_cancel or calendar_schedule, though that comparison is implied by the distinct purpose.

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