cancel_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two traits: the ownership prerequisite and that attendees receive a cancellation notification. However, it omits whether cancellation is irreversible, how it affects the organizer's own calendar, and what the call returns, leaving significant gaps for a mutation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler — the action, the precondition, and the consequence arrive in order. Its weakness is under-specification rather than verbosity, which is penalized in other dimensions.

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?

A destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter. The description should at minimum cover irreversibility and the required scope of the id, none of which is present.

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 0% and the single required parameter (id) is undocumented in the schema. The description never mentions the parameter at all, so the agent gets no hint about whose event id is expected, its format, or where to obtain it.

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 (cancel) plus resource (event), with an ownership scope ("an event you created") that separates it from update_event and delete_message. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"An event you created" implies a usage precondition — you cannot cancel others' events — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as update_event for rescheduling versus cancelling.

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