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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to restate that this is a destructive operation. It adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: the cancellation is permanent and cannot be reactivated, specific roles are required, and user confirmation is mandatory. This is strong behavioral disclosure, though it does not detail post-cancellation effects such as attendee notifications.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: the action and permanence appear first, followed by sibling routing, role requirements, and the destructive confirmation. Every sentence carries necessary operational information 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?

For a single-parameter destructive admin operation, the description covers the core facts: what happens, what cannot happen afterward, which alternative tool to use, who may call it, what to confirm, and where the input comes from. Combined with the annotations and output schema, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool safely.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage, describing event_id as coming from list_school_events and noting the cancellation is permanent. The description repeats the 'get event_id from list_school_events' guidance but adds no fundamentally new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 clear verb and resource ('Cancels a school event outright'), and immediately distinguishes it from siblings like update_school_event (for changes) and cancel_my_event_registration (for personal registrations). The 'ADMIN' prefix and emphasis on permanence make the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says when NOT to use this tool ('For schedule, capacity, or price changes use update_school_event instead'), which is the key routing decision. It also gives a prerequisite ('Requires pac_cordinator or event_cordinator role'), a mandatory confirmation step ('DESTRUCTIVE - confirm with the user'), and the exact source for the input ('Get event_id from list_school_events').

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