Plan to delete a ChurchTools appointment

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

The description leads with 'Writes nothing: returns a plan,' but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, i.e. the structured data says this tool is not read-only while the prose says it changes nothing. The spec defines readOnlyHint as 'does not modify its environment,' so the two are directly inconsistent; the otherwise useful disclosure (series-wide effect, irreversibility, preview contents) is undercut by this mismatch.

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?

Two tight sentences with the most important fact ('Writes nothing') front-loaded, followed by scope and irreversibility. No filler sentences; every clause carries 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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers the essentials: no writes, plan semantics, series scope, preview contents, and irreversibility. The one missing piece is how the returned plan is used (i.e., that ct_execute_plan runs it), which an agent must guess.

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 100% and both ids are documented, including the notable note that one appointmentId covers every occurrence of a series. The description's 'for a series every occurrence goes' merely restates that schema note rather than adding syntax or format detail, so it lands at the baseline.

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+resource (delete an appointment) and adds the crucial qualifier that it returns a plan rather than performing the delete, plus the series-wide scope. It does not name the sibling that consumes the plan (ct_execute_plan), so the two-phase workflow is only implied.

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 preview framing ('The preview shows the whole appointment') implies a preview-then-execute flow, but the description never says when to call this versus ct_execute_plan or ct_get_appointment, and gives no explicit exclusions. Usage is left to inference from the tool's shape.

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