void_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and covers key behavioral traits: voided rows are excluded from estimates, re-insertion works for the same (source_ref, line_no), return shape is {voided: n}, and zero matches is a no-op not an error. This is excellent transparency for a mutation 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?

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the action 'void', and every sentence adds value: scope, behavioral consequence, return format, and edge case. There is no redundance or 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 only 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fully compensates by covering the purpose, parameter behavior, return value, and an important edge case. It is self-sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool and what to expect.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters, and it does. It states that line_no omitted means all lines are voided, and that source_ref and line_no together form the key for re-insertion. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'void' with resource 'matching event lines', and clarifies scope (all lines if line_no omitted). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like add_items or get_events by framing it as a 'Correction path'.

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 clear context by labeling this a correction path, implying it is for fixing previously recorded events. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name an alternative, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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