calendar_attendee_remove

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

With no annotations at all, the description does real work: it discloses the outward-facing consequence (Google may e-mail a cancellation), the mandatory confirm=true guard, and the return shape ('what is left'). It omits reversibility, whether non-attendee e-mails silently no-op or error, and any permission requirements.

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, zero filler. The destructive side-effect leads and the confirm requirement follows, both front-loaded where an agent will see them.

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?

For a 3-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential danger (cancellation e-mails), the gate (confirm=true) and the return value. Missing only edge-case behavior for invalid or non-attending addresses.

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 coverage is 100%, so emails, event_id and confirm are already documented. The description only adds rationale for confirm ('outward-facing or destructive') and confirms that the response reflects remaining attendees; the emails parameter semantics (batch vs single, unknown addresses) get no extra clarity.

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 ('Remove guests from an event') that an agent can act on immediately. It does not name the obvious sibling calendar_attendee_add as the inverse operation, so differentiation is left implicit rather than stated.

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 a precondition (confirm=true) and a side-effect warning, which implies when this tool is invoked. It never explicitly says when to use this versus calendar_attendee_add or calendar_update, nor when removal is inappropriate.

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