Goals Delete Goal Event

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds a hedged caveat that the operation 'may delete, clear, reset, or otherwise remove data.' This adds slight context about non-straightforward deletion, but it is vague and does not describe reversibility, cascading effects, or what kind of goal event data is affected.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence is somewhat redundant and vague, but it does not waste much space. It is concise, though not maximally informative.

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 tool with no output schema and a required event_id, the description is too thin. It does not explain what a 'goal event' is, how deletion affects goal progress or history, or what the caller should expect in return. With no output schema and minimal parameter info, an agent has insufficient context to invoke this correctly beyond guessing.

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 67%, with fields and output_mode having inline descriptions but event_id lacking any. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it does not compensate for the undocumented required parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since coverage is moderate and the schema does most of the work.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete goal event.' This is clear and distinct from the sibling 'goals_delete_goal', which deletes a goal object rather than an event. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like goals_update_goal_event or goals_list_goal_events, so it relies on the tool name for disambiguation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention goals_update_goal_event, goals_archive_goal, or goals_delete_goal, nor does it state that deleting an event is for removing a specific contribution/withdrawal record. An agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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