decline_calendar_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Decline') which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like permission requirements, whether the decline is reversible, how it affects the calendar, or rate limits. The example adds some context but not comprehensive behavioral information.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Example). Every sentence earns its place - the purpose statement is front-loaded, parameter explanations are concise, and the example demonstrates practical usage without unnecessary 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and the description covers both parameters despite 0% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context about what 'decline' actually entails in the system.

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 well by explaining both parameters: event_uid ('UID of the event to decline') and comment ('Optional comment for the decline'). It clarifies which parameter is required and which is optional, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Decline') and resource ('a calendar event invitation'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like accept_calendar_event or tentative_calendar_event. The verb+resource combination is precise and 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 implies usage context (declining an invitation) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like accept_calendar_event or delete_calendar_event. No guidance is provided about prerequisites (e.g., needing an invitation) or exclusions.

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