Outlook Assistant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Deletes' clearly indicates a destructive operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether notifications are sent, or what happens to recurring events. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 maximally concise at just three words ('Deletes a calendar event'), with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without any unnecessary elaboration.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical context like what 'delete' means in this system (permanent vs. soft delete), whether there are confirmation steps, what the response looks like, or error conditions. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'eventId' clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 clearly states the verb ('Deletes') and resource ('a calendar event'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cancel-event' or 'decline-event', which might have overlapping functionality in a calendar context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cancel-event' or 'decline-event'. There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions needed, or contextual factors that would help an agent choose between these similar-sounding tools.

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