tentative_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 mentions the action ('Mark a calendar event as tentative') and return value ('Response status'), but lacks details on permissions needed, whether this is reversible, rate limits, or what specific status codes might be returned. The example adds some context but not comprehensive behavioral traits.

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 a clear purpose statement, parameter explanations, return value note, and a practical example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, mutation action), no annotations, but with an output schema (implied by 'Returns: Response status'), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and returns, though could benefit from more behavioral context like error conditions or side effects.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'event_uid' is the 'UID of the event' and 'comment' is an 'Optional comment' for providing context like 'Forse riesco a partecipare'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail UID format or comment constraints.

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 tool's purpose: 'Mark a calendar event as tentative (maybe attending).' It specifies the verb ('Mark'), resource ('calendar event'), and action ('as tentative'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like accept_calendar_event or decline_calendar_event beyond the different status.

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 through the phrase 'maybe attending' and the example comment, suggesting this is for uncertain attendance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus accept_calendar_event or decline_calendar_event, nor does it mention prerequisites like event access permissions.

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