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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses that only ONE notice exists at a time, that it is the one scheduled via event_pass_notice sendAt, and that the call is auth-gated to hosts/co-hosts with a personal connector token. It also states the return content, which is valuable since no output schema exists; only rate limits or failure modes remain unaddressed.

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 core action and scope are front-loaded, followed by usage triggers, return behavior, and auth constraints, with no filler. The single long clause about event_pass_notice sendAt is somewhat dense on first read but every element carries information.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers scope, auth, and what the response reports, which is most of what an agent needs. It leaves minor gaps such as behavior when no notice is scheduled (idempotent no-op versus error) and whether the event argument rejects non-personal events.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a mild constraint (the event must be a personal event served by this connector) beyond the schema's explanation that eventIdOrName is the id or name as the organizer spells it.

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 gives a specific verb (removes/cancel) on a specific resource (the single pass notice scheduled via event_pass_notice sendAt) and bounds the scope to personal events this connector serves. An agent can distinguish it from event_pass_notice, event_pass_reissue and event_pass_revoke without opening any schema.

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 supplies concrete user phrasings that should route here ("cancel the scheduled notice", "do not send that reminder") and states the prerequisite of being host/co-host with a personal connector token. It does not explicitly exclude near-neighbours such as revoking an issued pass, so the when-not guidance is implicit rather than stated.

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