ofw_delete_event

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes far beyond: it discloses the read-first behavior, co-parent visibility confirmation, preview of the exact event, refusal if the event changed, and the two-step confirmToken fallback. This is exceptional transparency for a destructive 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 front-loaded with the core action and each subsequent sentence adds essential safety information. It is slightly long but every sentence earns its place; it could be tightened but remains effective.

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 complex destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the full confirmation flow, preview, and refusal conditions. The only minor gap is that it never explicitly states what a successful deletion returns, but the overall flow is well-covered.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about confirmToken usage in the confirmation flow, but does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents. Thus a 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Delete an OurFamilyWizard calendar event.' This unambiguously identifies the operation and differentiates it from sibling tools like ofw_update_event or ofw_create_event by the action verb.

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 operational context—reads first, requires confirmation, handles repeating events with includeFuture—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. That's a clear context with no exclusions, matching a 4.

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