remove_event

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

Annotations already flag destructive, non-readonly, idempotent, and closed-world, but the description adds real context beyond them: the target file, the source-restriction refusal path, the demo/write-permission refusals, and the observable no-op message when an id is already gone. This is unusually complete for a destructive tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and target file, and every sentence carries actionable constraint or refusal information. The prose is dense and the parenthetical provenance note is slightly compressed, but there is no filler.

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?

Given a destructive, idempotent, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers target storage, eligibility, refusal conditions, and no-op behavior. An agent has enough to call it correctly and predict failure modes.

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?

The single id parameter already has 100% schema description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds provenance semantics by tying accepted ids to add_event/list_events and identifying agent-prefixed ids, which is useful validation context beyond the schema.

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 and resource (remove an event) plus the exact backing store (health-events-agent.json) and the provenance link to add_event. It is unmistakable against siblings like add_event and list_events.

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?

Explicitly says which events are removable (agent-logged ids, source 'agent' in list_events) and which are refused (iOS app events), and adds preconditions: demo mode and non-writable folders are refused. That is a clear when/when-not contract with the alternative behavior named.

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