Delete an appointment

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

The annotations already mark the operation as destructive and non-read-only, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: permanence ('Permanently delete'), irreversibility ('Not reversible'), and the required OAuth scope 'appointments:write'. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the action, the alternative, the irreversibility warning, and the scope requirement are each expressed in a short, front-loaded statement. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 delete operation with annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior and no output schema, the description fully equips an agent: what it does, when to avoid it, what happens afterward, and what scope is required.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter `id` is already documented with type and an example. The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so it correctly relies on the schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Permanently delete an appointment') with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the cancellation path by telling the agent to update status to canceled when the record should be kept, separating it from sibling update_appointment.

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 gives the condition for using the alternative: 'To cancel but keep the record, update its status to canceled instead.' It also warns the operation is not reversible, making the appropriate use case unmistakable.

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