event_remove_parent

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is covered; the description adds genuine value by disclosing the failure mode (NOT_FOUND for a missing link) and the return payload {eventId, version, parents}, which no output schema supplies. It omits permission/auth requirements and whether expectedVersion mismatch is an error.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the action and the link's meaning, then failure behavior, then return shape. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the grounding requirement, the failure case, and the return shape, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Gaps are minor: it does not address version-conflict handling or authorization, and nested actor semantics are left to the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic framing beyond the schema: 'grounded on Accounts of the child or of the parent' explains the rationale for sourceAccountIds, and 'child is part of parent' disambiguates the direction of childEventId vs parentEventId. The expectedVersion parameter's concurrency behavior is still only explained by 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?

Specific verb plus resource: it removes the 'child is part of parent' link and defines that relation precisely, which is clearer than a bare 'remove parent'. It contrasts implicitly with the sibling event_add_parent through the verb, but it never names a sibling or explicitly says how it differs from other event_* tools.

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?

Implies usage through operational detail: the link must rest on an Account of the child or parent, and calling it on a non-existent link fails with NOT_FOUND. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives (e.g. event_add_parent, event_note, event_undo_revision), leaving the agent to infer the scenario.

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