delete_event

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. 'Delete' conveys that this is a destructive operation, but the description does not state whether deletion is permanent or irreversible, whether it cascades to related data, whether special permissions are required, or what happens if the event does not exist. There is no contradiction with annotations since none are present, but disclosure is minimal.

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 five words with zero filler and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficiently brief, though the brevity is partly a product of under-specification rather than a deliberately compact rich definition.

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 tool with two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is inadequate. It fails to clarify parameter semantics, permanence of deletion, or error behavior, leaving an agent unable to confidently invoke the tool correctly despite the simple interface.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining what 'id' and 'campaignId' mean and how they relate. It does neither — the description mentions no parameters at all. An agent cannot determine what values to supply or whether campaignId scopes the id.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a clear resource ('event'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_event, update_event, get_event, and list_events. The word 'existing' also correctly scopes the action to pre-existing records. It is slightly minimal, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_event, nor about prerequisites like the event having to exist in the given campaign. The only usage signal is implicitly derived from the verb 'delete,' which does not constitute explicit usage guidance.

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