Cancel event

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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-idempotent, but the description adds the crucial consequence the annotations cannot convey: real guests receive texts by default, the event page persists in a canceled state rather than disappearing, repeat cancellation is refused, and the action cannot be undone here. This is exactly the extra context a mutation tool needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered with scope, side effects, and constraints in short sentences. Every sentence adds distinct information with no repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent the observable outcome (page remains up, marked canceled, guests texted unless disabled) and the failure mode (already-canceled refused). Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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, but the description adds real-world meaning beyond the schema by emphasizing that notify_guests defaults to reaching real people and that the message is delivered with the cancellation. That consequence framing is genuinely useful over the bare schema field notes.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Cancel an event') and immediately clarifies the scope of that cancellation: the page stays up marked canceled, which implicitly distinguishes it from the destructive delete_event sibling. 'Hosts only' further pins the caller scope.

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?

Gives clear operational context: default behavior texts guests, notify_guests=false suppresses that, already-canceled events are refused, and the action is irreversible. It stops short of naming delete_event as the alternative when permanent removal is wanted, so it is strong but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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