kronos_delete_event

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's statement 'Безвозвратно' (irreversibly) adds the permanence nuance beyond the annotation. It also clarifies the hard-delete vs. soft-cancel distinction, which is valuable behavioral context not captured by the annotations alone.

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?

The description is concise: two clear functional sentences plus compact Args/Returns sections. The purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative is mentioned early. The Args/Returns repetition is minor and does not bloat the text, so it remains effectively structured.

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 the presence of an output schema (the return is just a raw JSON string) and the explicit usage guidance, the description covers the essential operational context. It explains when to use this vs. the alternative and notes the destructive nature, leaving no critical gap for safe invocation.

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 description merely lists the parameter names (filial_id, event_id) and marks them required, which duplicates the schema's required list. However, the schema already provides richer descriptions for each field (e.g., event_id explains hard vs. soft delete and filial_id explains scope), so the description adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high effective schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Безвозвратно удалить запись', permanent deletion) and the resource (event via DELETE /api/v1/event/{id}). It distinguishes itself from the sibling kronos_update_event by explicitly contrasting the hard delete with the soft-cancel alternative, so an agent can tell them apart at a glance.

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 an explicit when-to-use rule: prefer kronos_update_event with status_id=0 for ordinary cancellations to preserve history, and use this only when the record must disappear entirely (e.g., erroneous creation). This clear guidance leaves no ambiguity about selecting among siblings.

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