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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is given. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the linked Google calendar is NOT deleted, the action cannot be undone, and user confirmation is required. These details go beyond the annotations and materially affect the decision.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the two critical caveats (calendar preservation, irreversibility/confirmation) follow. Every clause earns its place.

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 delete with full annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, the description supplies the crucial side-effects an agent needs (what is preserved, irreversibility, confirmation). No output schema exists but return values are unimportant for a delete, leaving little 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 coverage is 100%, so resourceId, workspaceId and idempotencyKey are all fully documented in the schema itself. The description's 'person or room' loosely reinforces resourceId but adds no syntax or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Remove a person or room') and scopes it ('take it off every service'), which clearly separates it from delete_booking_service and update_booking_resource. An agent can distinguish what this deletes without opening the schema.

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 'confirm with the user first' instruction implies the tool's place in a workflow, and the irreversibility note signals caution. However, it never names an alternative (e.g. update_booking_resource for edits) or states when to prefer it over siblings, so routing guidance is only implied.

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