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

Annotations already cover readOnly/destructive/idempotent, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: not retried, undo_id returned, one-hour restorability, permanence afterward, and the exact endpoint semantics for occurrence vs series.

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?

Dense but every clause earns its place: risk flag front-loaded, permission, retry behavior, recovery path, then per-occurrence semantics. 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?

Covers risk, permissions, undo/restore behavior, and recurring-event scoping for a destructive tool with no output schema. Minor gap: no mention of error/refusal behavior when version is set, though the schema documents version.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description nonetheless adds real value: explains the occurrence-id format (123-rid-<unix start>) and clarifies that redit 'single' is the default versus 'all' deleting the whole series.

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 (event), and distinguishes scope with 'or for a recurring event the chosen occurrences'. Clearly separable from teamup_get_event, teamup_update_event, and teamup_create_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?

Explicitly names the permission needed ('Needs modify permission') and routes to the recovery sibling (teamup_undo_event_action, one hour window). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, such as pointing to teamup_update_event if the agent only wants to modify rather than remove.

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