calendar_respond

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key external side effect (the organizer is notified by Google) and the confirm gate. It stops short of stating whether the status can be changed again later, what permissions are required, or whether the action is idempotent for a recurring series.

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: the action first, then the hard prerequisite. Nothing is redundant and every clause carries information the caller needs.

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 simple four-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effect, and the confirm gate adequately. The only material omission is routing guidance against the near-duplicate calendar_rsvp sibling.

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%: status enum, event_id series semantics, instance_start, and confirm are all documented in the schema. The description only restates the confirm requirement and adds no parameter detail beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Answer an invitation: set your own attendee status'), which is concrete and actionable. However it does not distinguish itself from the sibling calendar_rsvp, which appears to cover the same ground, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.

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 confirm=true prerequisite is stated, which is useful gating guidance, and the parenthetical explains the outward effect. But it gives no when-not guidance and never mentions calendar_rsvp or calendar_attendee_add as alternatives for RSVP-like actions, leaving the agent to infer which tool to pick.

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