cancel_calendar_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key side effect — the event 'disappears from every attendee's calendar' — which is genuinely useful for a destructive operation. However, it says nothing about permissions/ownership requirements, whether the cancellation is reversible, whether attendees are notified, or what the 'message' parameter does.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, leading with the action and following with the consequence. Efficient, though extremely terse given the destructive nature of the operation.

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 mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It conveys blast radius but omits ownership/permission constraints, the message parameter's role, and irreversibility, all of which an agent needs before calling it.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions 'address', 'event_id', or 'message'; in particular 'message' is entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess whether it is a cancellation note sent to attendees.

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?

States a specific verb (cancel) and resource (meeting/calendar event), and adds a scoping qualifier — 'this inbox organized' — which separates it from rsvp_to_invite and update_calendar_event. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 phrase 'this inbox organized' implicitly tells the agent when this tool applies (only events this inbox owns), which is more than nothing. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no alternative is named for cancelling events the inbox did not organize.

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