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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this destroys no history, needs no preview step, and cannot be undone. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs for a destructive call. It stops short of stating permissions or what happens if the id is not found, so not a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the distinguishing traits. Every clause earns its place with no waste.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the salient behavioral risk (irreversible, no history impact) but leaves the parameter completely undefined and omits any permission or error context. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single required id parameter is documented nowhere. The description says nothing about what the id identifies or its format. With one parameter at 0% coverage, the description should compensate and does not.

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 (remove) and resource (a custom calendar event), and explicitly distinguishes itself from deleting a lead or a stage. An agent can tell it apart from crm_update_calendar_event or delete_crm_lead 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?

Implies when to use: it's a direct delete with no preview step needed, unlike lead/stage deletes. But it never names a specific prerequisite or a when-not condition, and the sibling set includes a preview_delete_crm_lead and preview_delete_crm_stage but no preview tool for this one, so the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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