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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces destructive behavior with the explicit word 'Destructive' and adds context that it affects a 'real connected calendar.' It also provides the exact HTTP DELETE API endpoint, giving useful behavioral detail beyond the annotation.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and key qualifier, then states destructiveness and the API endpoint. There is no filler or redundant material.

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 two-parameter destructive delete operation with full schema coverage and a destructiveHint annotation, the description provides the necessary behavioral warning and API path. No critical information needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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%, so both calendar_id and event_id are already documented. The description adds 'by your event_id' and places the event_id in the JSON body, but this largely restates information already present in the schema rather than adding substantial new meaning.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Deletes an event (by your event_id) from a real connected calendar.' It clearly identifies the action, the target, and an important qualifier ('real connected calendar'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like cronofy_read_events and cronofy_upsert_event.

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?

The description implies usage for deleting a specific event, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cronofy_upsert_event for creating or updating events. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of sibling tools.

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