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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnly=false, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the call silently does nothing for synced events, which prevents a false-success assumption. It stops short of saying whether deletion is reversible or what happens to linked tasks.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the scoping caveat is placed right after the purpose statement where it has the most effect.

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 delete with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers the main trap. Minor gaps remain on irreversibility and interaction with linked tasks, which matter for a destructive operation.

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 event_id and workspace_id are already documented, including the workspace-name-or-UUID flexibility. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Borra un evento') and immediately qualifies scope as LOCAL. That distinguishes it from the update_event/create_event siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit exclusion rule: synced events are not deleted here, they must be removed in their source calendar. A clear when-not-to-use signal, but it does not point to any alternative tool or describe prerequisites.

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