calendar_remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does meaningful work: 'it stops firing but is not deleted' tells the agent the operation is not a destructive delete, and equivalence to 'calendar_update with status='cancelled'' clarifies the effective state change. It doesn't mention authorization, idempotency, or return payload, but the core side-effect is stated honestly.

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 compact sentences; the first front-loads the action and the key side-effect, the second handles the prerequisite. Every clause provides either behavior or usage information and 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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema cancellation tool, the description covers what it does, what happens to the event, the equivalent update call, and how to obtain the id. It doesn't describe result/response format, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap; overall it is complete enough.

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 only parameter, id, is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including where the id comes from ('returned by calendar_add or calendar_list'). The description repeats the by-id mechanism but adds no semantics beyond the schema, matching 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?

Description uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Cancel a calendar event by id' and adds a key distinguishing fact ('same effect as calendar_update with status='cancelled''). This clearly separates it from calendar_update and calendar_list, so an agent can pick the right sibling without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Use calendar_list first if you don't already have the event's id', which is a concrete precondition. It also references calendar_update as the semantic equivalent, though it stops short of giving a condition for choosing one over the other, so it's not a full when-not-to-use guide.

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