calendar_add_attendee

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it warns about historical unreliability and explains the verification step. Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, which aligns. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with clear purpose, followed by essential behavioral context. No redundant information.

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?

Missing return value information (no output schema), prerequisites, error cases, and side effects like invitation sending. The verification behavior is noted but overall completeness is low for a 4-parameter tool.

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 50% with descriptions only for calendarName and calendarIndex. The description does not explain required parameters 'uid' and 'email', leaving them undocumented. It adds no value beyond the 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 action (add), the resource (attendee), and method (by email). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calendar_remove_attendee by specifying the addition operation.

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 context about historical unreliability and verification behavior, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calendar_add_alarm or prerequisites such as event existence.

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