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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, but the description adds valuable detail beyond the annotation by revealing exactly what gets destroyed: the event AND its prep notes, and that removal is permanent. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 is front-loaded, followed by the critical permanence warning and routing guidance, making every sentence earn 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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers what is deleted, that prep notes are removed, that deletion is permanent, and when to use update_event instead. No output schema exists, and the description sufficiently covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema only provides a bare string 'id' with 0% description coverage. The description implies that id refers to the event being deleted from the athlete's calendar, which adds some meaning, but it does not explicitly state the source or format of the id or how it relates to list_events. This is acceptable for a single obvious parameter but not fully specified.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('event from the athlete's calendar'), and it distinguishes itself from update_event by noting when deletion is appropriate versus when updates should be preferred. This is not a tautology and clearly separates the tool from its siblings.

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 explicitly gives the conditions for use ('cancelled or added by mistake') and names the alternative ('prefer update_event when only details changed'). This gives an agent clear routing guidance without needing to infer usage.

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