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

Adds real behavioral value beyond the annotations: the delete is soft (data retained rather than purged) and cancelling a scheduled notification's pending delivery is a disclosed side effect not visible in the schema. The annotations already carry destructive/idempotent hints, so this extra context is a genuine supplement rather than a repeat.

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 filler, and the operation type and its side effect are front-loaded in that order.

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 an output schema, full annotation coverage, and a 100%-documented input schema, the description only needs to supply the semantics that structure can't: soft-delete and schedule cancellation. It covers those but says nothing about recoverability or whether draft vs published notifications behave differently.

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 parameters are documented there, so the description only needs to add scope meaning. 'in the provided event' does confirm the notification is nested under event_id, but that is a marginal addition; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Soft-delete a notification') with a meaningful qualifier ('soft') that distinguishes it from a hard delete. It doesn't reference any sibling (e.g. read_notifications, update_notification_schedule, publish_draft_notification), which keeps it 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?

No statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as update_notification_schedule (to reschedule rather than cancel) or read_notifications (to locate the ID). Usage is only implied by the phrase 'in the provided event'.

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