calendar_rsvp

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 organizer is notified (outward-facing side effect), that the effect lands on Google's servers immediately while the local provider catches up after sync, and that confirm=true is mandatory. It does not cover failure modes (invalid event_id, declined confirm) or whether an answer can be revised later, keeping it short of a 5.

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 with the purpose, then the sibling contrast, then the prerequisite, then the confirm requirement — a sensible order with no filler. Minor deduction for referring to siblings as 'calendar.respond' / 'calendar.open_event' (dot notation) while the actual tool names use underscores, which is a small avoidable ambiguity.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: side effect, sync/asynchrony behavior, precondition, and the confirm guard, which explains the confirm and timeout parameters implicitly. Missing only edge-case behavior such as what a failed or timed-out answer looks like.

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% and the enum/default documentation for scope, start, confirm, and timeout is already complete, so the baseline is 3. The description's only added parameter meaning is the scope='this' recurring-occurrence case, which largely restates the schema's own scope description.

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 with the Calendar app's Yes / No / Maybe buttons') and immediately adds the consequence ('organizer is notified'). It is clearly distinguished from the sibling calendar_respond by transport path and by the single-occurrence capability.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with calendar.respond (provider path) and explains why you would pick this one: it goes through Google's servers at once and can answer a single occurrence with scope 'this'. It also gives an ordering prerequisite — read the current answer first with calendar.open_event — and the confirm=true gate.

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