Cancel and delete Luma event

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

Although annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, the description goes further by explaining irreversibility, guest notification, and the non-destructive nature of the preview call. These details provide context beyond the structured 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?

Three sentences with no filler. The key preview/confirm workflow is front-loaded, followed by the irreversible consequence, then the exact confirmation conditions. Every sentence contributes critical information.

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?

The description fully covers the two-phase deletion workflow, the irreversibility, and the refund decision. With no output schema, it still tells the agent what the preview returns (event details, guest count, refund-required status), making the tool self-sufficient.

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 67%, and the description enriches both confirmed and should_refund parameters: confirmed maps to preview vs. permanent deletion, and should_refund is tied to paid events and user confirmation. event_id is obvious from the tool's purpose.

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 action ('preview or permanently cancel and delete') on a specific resource ('one Luma event'), making it unambiguous what the tool does. It also distinguishes the destructive final action from the non-destructive preview mode.

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 gives explicit sequencing: call with confirmed=false first, then call with confirmed=true only after explicit user confirmation. It also clarifies the conditional use of should_refund for paid events, leaving little room for incorrect invocation.

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