calendar_rsvp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about side effects (this mutates the user's RSVP status), permission requirements, or that confirm/dry_run control previewing versus execution. The schema mentions preview semantics, but the description itself adds no behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste and the action options listed inline. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified rather than elegantly concise.

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?

The rich schema (5 params, 100% coverage, enum) and absence of an output schema reduce the burden, but with no annotations the description should at least note that this changes state and how preview works. It is minimally adequate but leaves a mutation-behavior gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description only restates the response enum values that the schema already documents, adding no new meaning beyond what the structured fields provide.

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 (respond) and resource (calendar invitation) and enumerates the three response actions, so the agent can identify it as the RSVP tool distinct from calendar_edit or calendar_remove. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it is not, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Respond to a calendar invitation' implies the usage context, but no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance is given and no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., needing an event_id from calendar_search) are stated. Usage is only implied.

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