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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description still specifies exactly what is destroyed ('a poll's addresses and answers are deleted') and what survives ('a meeting the provider made for one being booked stays'). This destruction/preservation split is precisely the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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 verb is front-loaded, but the content is packed into one convoluted sentence with ambiguous referents ('events_list shows whether it was', 'for one being booked stays') that require re-reading. Compact, but structure and clarity suffer.

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 destructive, annotation-covered tool with no output schema, it covers the key gaps: destruction scope, preserved state, id lookup source, and a follow-up check (events_list). It omits error conditions and required permissions, but nothing essential for a correct call 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 coverage is 50% and the description compensates by tying 'id' to its source ('as links_polls_list names it') and by implying the two 'kind' values through 'booking links or group polls.' It adds real semantic meaning, though the kind parameter itself is never described explicitly.

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 states a specific verb ('Close') and two concrete resources ('booking links or group polls') and narrows scope to those 'still open or being booked.' It is clearly distinguishable from sibling write tools like booking_links_create, polls_create, or events_cancel.

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 implies the precondition ('still open or being booked') and routes the agent to links_polls_list for the id, which is useful selection context. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names an alternative for adjacent cases (e.g., cancelling a single meeting via events_cancel), leaving the when-not to inference.

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