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

Annotation Contradiction: The description clearly describes destructive behavior ('removing', 'deleted too', 'archived', 'MUTATES'), but annotations declare destructiveHint=false. It also describes a non-idempotent flow (success first, error on unknown/removed ID) while idempotentHint=true. The description itself is rich, but it contradicts structured metadata, so score is 1.

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?

Dense and information-rich; each clause adds a distinct piece of context (cascade, food row mirroring, life_state rebuild, auth/cost). However, it is a long run-on paragraph and could be better structured with bullet points or separate sentences for readability.

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 mutation tool, it covers ownership scope, error conditions, cascading effects, linked asset handling, food-diary special case, alternative routing, side effects (life_state rebuild), authentication requirements, and cost. An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. Very complete.

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 already describes event_id as 'UUID of a calendar event the authenticated user owns.' The description repeats this and adds error behavior for unknown/other-user IDs, which is useful but does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter meaning.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'removing one existing calendar event the authenticated user owns.' It distinguishes from related tools by explicitly naming delete_food as the preferred tool for food-diary meals, making the scope clear.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'For food-diary meals, prefer delete_food.' Also states prerequisites and restrictions (must own the event, API key or OAuth required, share tokens cannot write), giving the agent clear decision criteria.

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