cancel-calendar-event

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavior: the event is moved to Deleted Items, it can cancel occurrences of recurring meetings, it sends a cancellation message, and attendees get an HTTP 400 error. These are behavioral traits not covered by annotations. While the description doesn't explicitly mention the confirm gate parameter, that is documented in the schema. It adds significant context beyond 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?

The description is informative but somewhat verbose, with a detailed first paragraph and a separate tip. However, it is well-structured: the purpose is front-loaded, then details, then a quick-reference tip. Every sentence adds value, though there is slight repetition of the cancellation purpose between the first paragraph and the tip. Not overly long for the complexity.

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 complex tool with organizer-only semantics, recurring event support, and error behavior, the description covers all key aspects: what it does, the move to Deleted Items, the custom message, the difference from delete, and the attendee error. No output schema exists, so explaining return values is not required. An agent has sufficient information to decide when and how to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 80%, so most parameters are documented. The description only adds a mention of the Comment field in the tip, which is already in the schema. It doesn't provide additional meaning for parameters like eventId or confirm beyond what the schema offers. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description doesn't elevate it.

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 action: the organizer of a meeting can cancel an event and send a cancellation message. It specifies the resource (calendar event) and the action (cancel), and distinguishes it from delete-calendar-event and decline-calendar-event by noting the organizer-only restriction and the ability to send a custom message. This fully differentiates it from siblings without needing to inspect schemas.

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 says when to use this tool instead of delete-calendar-event (when attendees should see 'Canceled') and directs attendees to use decline-calendar-event instead. It also explains the error condition for attendees, giving clear guidance on when not to use the tool. No inference is required.

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