Respond to Invitation

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

The description reveals critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: apply_to is required for recurring events and has material consequences, a sent decline cannot be recalled, and nothing is sent until the user supplies it. These details add significant context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false) and help the agent understand side effects and timing. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose immediately. The following two sentences provide necessary warnings about recurring events and sent declines without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure aids quick comprehension.

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 5 parameters, an output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the most critical context (recurring event handling, irreversibility, and the fact that nothing is sent automatically). It does not elaborate on return values or authentication, but the output schema likely handles return details. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly say what happens for one-off events, though the schema implies apply_to is ignored.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (80% coverage). The description adds valuable nuance for apply_to, explaining that it is required for recurring events and that its choice carries irreversible implications. It also clarifies that nothing is sent until the user supplies the response, which indirectly highlights the notify_organizer parameter's default behavior. This goes beyond a simple restatement of schema fields.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Accept, decline or tentatively accept an event invitation.' It clearly identifies the tool's function as responding to invitations, which distinguishes it from siblings like create_event, update_event, or cancel_event. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 strong usage guidance for recurring events: apply_to is required, and it tells the agent to ask the user which they meant rather than guessing. It also warns about consequences (declining the series means out of all future meetings) and that a decline cannot be recalled. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_email or create_event, so it misses explicit sibling differentiation.

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