send_invite

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is write-only, idempotent, and destructive. The description adds the technical detail that it uses RFC 5545 ICS with METHOD:REQUEST, which is useful context but does not disclose behaviors like what happens if the account is not specified or how errors are handled. It does not contradict 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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose. However, it is perhaps too concise given the complexity of the tool; a slightly longer description could improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 high parameter count (16) and the presence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the expected behavior for optional parameters, the format of the ICS file, or how the tool interacts with accounts. More context is needed for an agent to use it correctly without external knowledge.

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 only 6%, meaning only one parameter (start) has a description. The tool description does not explain the meaning or format of any parameter beyond what the names imply. For a tool with 16 parameters, this is insufficient. The description should at least clarify that 'to', 'start', 'end', and 'subject' are required.

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 explicitly states it sends a calendar invite using RFC 5545 ICS with METHOD:REQUEST. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like send_email, which send standard emails. The verb 'send' and resource 'calendar invite' are specific.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the intent is implied by naming it 'send_invite' and specifying calendar invite, it does not contrast with send_email or other tools. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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