calendar_rsvp

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

The description reveals destructive potential ('Declining may remove the event') and open-world risks ('external-edit races'), which aligns with the annotations. It could mention additional side effects like organizer notifications, but the key behavioral implications are disclosed.

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 three terse sentences, leading with purpose and followed by constraints and side-effect warnings. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

It covers purpose, prerequisites, and caveats, but omits any mention of return values or result shape, and does not clarify the complex occurrence/series targeting fields. Given the schema's complexity and absence of an output schema, this is a notable 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?

Only calendarId has an inline description; the description itself does not explain target's union variants, requestId, response values, comment usage, or occurrence-specific fields. Most parameters require inference from names and types, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 states the action ('Respond'), the resource ('invitation'), and the scope ('actual authenticated attendee of a default-calendar invitation'). It also differentiates from identity override, making the tool's purpose 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?

It provides explicit usage constraints (requires sendResponse=true and human WebAuthn review) and important caveats (declining may remove the event, external-edit races). It does not explicitly compare to sibling calendar tools, but the purpose and constraints make appropriate usage reasonably clear.

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