Plan to delete a ChurchTools event

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: no state is written, deletion is irreversible, and the cascade scope includes service assignments. The gaps are what the plan object contains and how it is later executed; note also a mild tension with readOnlyHint=false, since a tool that 'writes nothing' reads as read-only (destructiveHint=false is consistent, however).

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?

One sentence with the most important fact — 'Writes nothing' — front-loaded, then scope, then the reason for the preview. Slightly compressed phrasing ('as a delete cannot be undone') but no wasted words.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden; it says only that a plan/preview is returned, without describing its structure or how the plan is consumed. For a plan-generating tool in a plan/execute pair, that follow-up step is the key missing piece.

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 coverage is 100%, so both eventId and sendMail are already documented in the schema, and the description adds only the cascade scope ('with its service assignments'). It says nothing about sendMail or the effect of the mail option, so it does not exceed the schema 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 outcome: it returns a plan to delete an event plus its service assignments, and explicitly says it writes nothing — which corrects the misleading 'delete' in the name. It is distinguishable from ct_delete_appointment/ct_delete_group by resource, but it never points at ct_execute_plan as the follow-up, so the delete workflow's shape stays implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'the preview shows the whole event, as a delete cannot be undone' suggests this is the confirm-before-destroying step, but it never says when to call it versus ct_update_event or when to proceed to ct_execute_plan. No explicit when-not or alternative is given.

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