outlook_rsvp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation semantics are covered by structured data. The description adds the valid response vocabulary but says nothing about what RSVP actually does behaviorally (e.g. whether a notification is sent to the organizer, whether it can be changed afterward, whether the responder must be an attendee). Adequate but thin beyond the 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the disambiguation sentence second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Covers routing and the response enum well, but for a destructive mutation with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage it omits key context: the meaning/source of event_id, the purpose of the optional message, and the consequence of the RSVP. Enough to call it, not enough to call it confidently.

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 carry the parameter burden, and it only documents `response` (accept/decline/tentative) — a genuinely useful addition since the schema declares it as a bare string with no enum. It adds nothing about `event_id` or the optional `message`, leaving two of three parameters undocumented. Partial compensation.

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?

States a specific verb (RSVP) against a specific resource (calendar meeting invite), and immediately names the sibling tool it is confused with (outlook_reply). An agent can distinguish this from the other send/reply tools in the sibling list without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the when-to-use and the alternative: 'Use this for meeting invites; use outlook_reply to reply to a regular email message.' The selection condition is stated, not inferred.

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