Forward Invitation

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, non-idempotent, openWorld). The description's added behavioral context is the confirm-after-approval gate, but that same instruction is already spelled out in the confirm parameter description, so it repeats structured data. It adds little about side effects, e.g. that forwarding sends an external email that cannot be recalled.

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, purpose front-loaded and the confirm requirement second. Every sentence carries information and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

With a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description does not need to explain returns or field formats. It adequately covers purpose and the approval gate, but omits the external side effect of forwarding to recipients, which is only hinted at by the openWorld annotation.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters. The description only loosely references 'people the user names' and 'optional note,' which map to 'to' and 'comment' without adding format, limits, or syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Forward a meeting invitation to people the user names, with an optional note.' This is clear and actionable, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling email_forward or other calendar tools; the calendar-vs-email distinction is left to the reader.

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 gives one usage constraint ('Requires confirm=true after the user approves'), which is a meaningful prerequisite. However, it offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to alternatives like email_forward or calendar_respond, so selection guidance is only implied.

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