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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the specifics annotations cannot: the status transitions to 'deleting' immediately, cleanup is enqueued asynchronously, the immediate return shape is { status: 'scheduled' }, and deletion may take minutes for large calendars. This is exactly the destructive-op context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, and the async/scheduling behavior is front-loaded before the optional-parameter caveat and the polling guidance. Every sentence changes how the agent would call or follow up on the tool.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating the immediate return value ({ status: 'scheduled' }) and prescribing the polling tool for completion. For a two-parameter destructive async tool, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for the non-obvious parameter: deleteEvents is explained as 'synced copies on all target calendars are also deleted', including the latency caveat. syncId is left unexplained, but as a required UUID identifier its meaning is self-evident from the name.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Delete a sync process') and immediately qualifies the operation as asynchronous, so an agent knows this is not a simple synchronous delete. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the related sibling finish_sync_delete, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

It gives clear post-call context: returns immediately and the agent should poll with get_sync until the sync disappears. It also explains the conditional effect of deleteEvents (deletes synced copies on target calendars, may take minutes), which guides the agent on how much to promise the user. No explicit when-not or named alternative such as finish_sync_delete.

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