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

Goes far beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: provider-level deletion, sync propagation, irreversibility, organiser cancellation for participants, and the local-hide behavior of the wrong tool. The description carries the full behavioral burden and does it thoroughly, with no contradiction to annotations.

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?

Four dense paragraphs, but every sentence earns its place—scope, side effects, confirmation protocol, and alternatives. It front-loads the core action and uses an efficient cross-reference to update_event, with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values don't need explaining. The description covers scope, permissions, irreversibility, participant impact, and alternative routing, making it complete enough for safe invocation of a destructive tool.

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 covers event_id only ('Identifier from create_event'); calendar_id has no description. The description never mentions the parameters or their roles, so it doesn't compensate for the 50% schema coverage gap.

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?

Opens with 'Deletes an event'—a specific verb and resource—and immediately narrows scope to events this access created plus manageable ones. It also distinguishes itself from respond_to_event for invitations, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly states when delete_event is appropriate ('events THIS access created' and manageable ones), when to confirm first (events not created by this access, events with other participants), and names respond_to_event as the right alternative for someone else's invitation. The cross-reference to update_event's four refusals adds further decision context.

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