calendar_open_event

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

With no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting well: it discloses that the tool navigates the UI ('read its screen'), enumerates the returned fields, and documents the RSVP state encoding including null. It omits the side effect of leaving the Calendar UI on the event screen (only implied by stay_open in the schema) and says nothing about failure behavior for unsynced events.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact enumeration of the returned surface, which is warranted because no output schema exists. The parenthetical RSVP encoding is slightly dense but each clause carries information.

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 UI-navigation read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies both the precondition and a field-level summary of the return payload, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide and to interpret the result. Nothing critical is missing.

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 the baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by pinning event_id to the provider-side id and tying validity to Google sync, which constrains which ids are legal. The recurrence-occurrence meaning of start is left to the schema.

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 opening sentence gives a concrete verb pair (open + read screen) and a specific resource (an event, keyed by provider id), which is materially different from calendar_get or calendar_events. It stops short of naming the closest sibling (calendar_view_screen) explicitly, so differentiation is inferential 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?

A real usage precondition is stated — 'The event must be synced with Google' — which tells the agent when this call can succeed. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over calendar_get or calendar_view_screen, and no note on what to do when the event is not synced.

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