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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral constraint — the meeting-room assignment blocks deletion — which is the key thing an agent needs beyond the structured data. Error/response behavior is left to the output schema.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The action and scope come first, then the blocking constraint, which is the right front-loading for a destructive 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?

With a full schema, annotations and an output schema, the description only needs to carry the non-obvious constraint, which it does. Minor gap: it doesn't state the consequence (error vs. silent no-op) when the location is assigned to a meeting room, though that may be in the output schema.

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 both event_id and location_id are already documented (including the hint that event_id comes from search_events). The description adds no interpretation of the parameters beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Delete a location') and scopes it to 'the provided event', which is enough to distinguish it from read_locations or update_location. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 a clear precondition ('can only be deleted if it is not assigned to a meeting room'), which is useful usage guidance. But it never says when to use this versus update_location (e.g., to detach or repurpose a location) or what to do when the constraint blocks deletion.

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