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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), so the description's main added value is the auth/membership requirement, which is genuinely useful. It does not disclose cascade effects — e.g. what happens to guests or RSVPs tied to the removed event — which is the kind of detail a destructive tool should carry.

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, purpose front-loaded, with the prerequisite as a follow-up. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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-param destructive tool with complete schema documentation and rich annotations, the description covers purpose and access prerequisites adequately. The remaining gap is blast-radius behavior after deletion, which annotations partially cover via destructiveHint.

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 wedding_id are already documented by the schema, including the multi-wedding condition for wedding_id. The description only echoes the required identifier implicitly ('an identified event') and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Removes') plus the resource ('an identified event') and the scope ('from the selected wedding'). The removal verb inherently separates it from add_my_event and update_my_event, though it never names an alternative sibling 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?

It gives a real precondition ('Requires sign-in and an Aisle membership') but says nothing about when to use this versus update_my_event or list_my_events, or any when-not-to-use case. Usage is largely implied by the verb alone.

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