Cancel event

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description explains that the first call changes nothing and returns a preview and confirm_token, with cancellation only happening on the second call. It also discloses the impact on interested members. This is rich behavioral context that matches and expands on the destructive hint.

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 sentences, no redundant phrasing. The first sentence states the action and consequence; the second explains the important safety flow. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 covers the core workflow, the two-step confirmation, and the main consequence. It does not address error cases (e.g., invalid token, nonexistent event) or permissions, but for a destructive tool with confirmation, the essential context is present. Given the absence of an output schema, the mention of preview and confirm_token is valuable.

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 50% (event and guild have descriptions). The tool description clarifies the confirm_token parameter by explaining its role in the second call, and implies preview behavior. However, dry_run remains undocumented in both schema and description, leaving its exact relationship to the preview unclear. Partial compensation but with a gap.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Cancel and remove a scheduled event.' It clearly identifies the resource (scheduled event) and the verb (cancel/remove), distinguishing it from update_event or other event tools. The consequence 'Interested members lose the listing' reinforces the purpose.

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 provides explicit usage guidance through the two-step confirmation flow: first call returns a preview and confirm_token, second call with token cancels. It also states 'Safe to call directly' to set expectations. It does not name alternatives, but given the sibling list lacks a delete_event, this is clearly the cancellation tool.

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