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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that: irreversibility, the protection of curated events, and that the call is free.

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?

Four short sentences, with the scope, the irreversibility warning, the exclusion, and the cost each stated once. Zero redundancy and no burying of the critical warning.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the annotations plus description cover the destructive profile and validity constraints. What is missing is minor: failure behavior for a nonexistent or already-deleted eventId, and no pointer to the edit alternative.

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 both parameters carry their own descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that the targeted event must be brand-owned and non-curated, without adding syntax or format detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete ... calendar events') and narrows scope to 'the brand's own' events, explicitly excluding Rawa-curated ones. An agent can distinguish this from update_calendar_event or cancel_publication without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear exclusion ('Rawa-curated events cannot be deleted') and a consequence warning ('This cannot be undone'), which is genuine when/when-not guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives such as update_calendar_event for modifying rather than removing an event.

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