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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=true, and the description adds real value on top: it spells out the blast radius of each mode (whole series vs one date vs that date onward) and documents the not-found behavior for missing or non-owned ids, which prevents leaking other users' event existence. It does not discuss auth scopes or recovery/undo.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the delete action and ownership scope before the mode semantics and error behavior. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a destructive three-parameter tool, the description covers scope, modes, required date semantics and error behavior, leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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, but the description adds semantics the schema does not carry: that mode defaults to 'all' and that occurrenceDate is effectively required for occurrence/following. The ISO 8601 format note reinforces the schema's anyOf.

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 (delete) plus resource (event) and scopes it to the authenticated user's own events, which separates it cleanly from delete_flow and from the various get_/render_/update_event 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?

Gives clear conditional guidance for the three modes, including which one is the default and which require occurrenceDate, so the agent can pick a mode without guessing. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives (e.g., set_event_status for cancellation instead of deletion) or stating when not to delete.

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