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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., irreversibility, impact on related data, or whether any note field is affected) beyond what the annotations 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words or redundant detail. It front-loads the core action, though it is brief to the point of being sparse.

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 operation, it would be helpful to note consequences (e.g., whether cancellation is permanent, if there is any confirmation step). The description gives no such context, and the lack of an output schema means no return-value guidance. It is minimally adequate but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 both 'eventId' and 'reason' described in the input schema. The description itself does not add any extra meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Odwołanie śledzonego zdarzenia' (cancellation of a tracked event) clearly states a specific action (cancel) and resource (tracked event). It is unambiguous but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like 'resolve_priced_event_now' or 'update_priced_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about prerequisites (e.g., event must be tracked first) or when cancellation is appropriate. The description only states what it does, not when or why.

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