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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that authentication is required and that authorization/ownership is checked, which is useful. It does not mention whether deletion is permanent or whether deleting a contract event cascades to child events.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the auth requirement and then concisely states the eligible event categories. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter delete tool, the description provides the essential context: required authentication, ownership/write authority, and eligible target types. It omits permanence/cascade details, but these are generally assumed for delete operations and the invocation information is otherwise complete.

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 fully documents the single event_id parameter with type, minimum, and description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action (Delete) on an event resource and clearly scopes which events qualify: own child-events and contract events with write authority. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like delete-correction and delete-schedule, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 when to use the tool: only for events you own or have delete/write authority on, and it identifies acceptable event types. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as delete-correction or delete-schedule.

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