calendar_rsvp

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

The description indicates it modifies an RSVP and cannot affect others' responses, but does not elaborate on side effects like sending email updates or how recurrence scope affects past/future instances; annotations already flag it as non-read-only and destructive.

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 the core purpose and concise requirements.

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 the operation, key requirements, and a limitation; without an output schema, return values need no explanation. It lacks detailed usage guidance but is sufficient for basic selection.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate; it hints at some semantic constraints (self email identity, attendees, recurrence) but does not explain individual parameters like requestId, eventId, accountId, or responseStatus.

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 defines the tool as approving a participant-only self-RSVP on the user's own primary calendar copy, which distinguishes it from general event modification tools like calendar_update_event or calendar_create_event.

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 mentions requirements (exact email identity, complete attendees, recurrence scope, sendUpdates, human approval) and a limitation (cannot alter another person's response), but does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for choosing this tool over siblings.

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