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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds important behavioral context: ownership enforcement, not-found behavior for missing/foreign ids, and the mode-dependent scope of deletion. It does not explicitly mention irreversibility, but the destructive annotation plus 'removes' makes that clear. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the core action first, then mode semantics, then parameter requirements, then edge-case behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, modes, parameter requirements, and error behavior. It does not describe the output schema, but an output schema exists, so that is not required. It could mention that deletion is irreversible, but the destructiveHint annotation already signals this. Overall, it is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the mode semantics and the requirement that occurrenceDate is needed for occurrence/following modes, which is not fully explicit in the schema alone. This goes beyond the baseline.

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 description clearly states the tool deletes an event owned by the authenticated user, and distinguishes it from update_event and set_event_status. It also explains the three modes (all, occurrence, following) with precise semantics, so an agent can immediately understand what the tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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 explicitly explains when to use each mode: 'all removes the whole series (default), occurrence removes one date, following removes that date and later.' It also states that occurrence and following require occurrenceDate, and that a missing id or an id owned by someone else returns not found. This gives clear usage guidance and edge-case behavior.

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