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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the cascade: deleting a calendar also destroys its event types, bookings, and availability data. This is exactly the kind of blast-radius context annotations do not provide.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the verb+resource and then the destructive scope. Every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the cascade scope and the permanence of the action, which are the key things an agent needs before invoking it. It is only slightly short of complete because it omits any confirmation or irreversibility-procedure guidance.

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 100% with a single 'id' parameter documented as 'Calendar UUID', so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about the identifier format or sourcing. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (delete) and resource (calendar) and goes further by naming the cascaded entities (event types, bookings, availability data). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete_* tools acting on other resources. It does not explicitly name a sibling like create_calendar or update_calendar, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the implicit reading of the verb. It never states prerequisites, confirmation requirements, or what a caller should do instead if they only want to remove one event type (e.g., neuron_delete_event_type). The word 'Permanently' hints at caution but is not actionable guidance.

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