calendly_cancel

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

Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool cancels (destructive) and requires event UUID, but omits details on reversibility, notifications, side effects, or error conditions. Minimal but adequate for a basic action.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no filler, and front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema and the action's simplicity, the description is adequate but lacks information on return values (success/error) and whether cancellation triggers any automated actions. It meets minimum viability for a straightforward cancellation tool.

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 baseline 3 applies. The description adds value by clarifying that the UUID must be the event's (not invitee's), which is not explicit in the schema description. This distinction enhances correct usage.

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 clearly states it cancels a scheduled event and specifies the required parameter (event UUID), differentiating it from similar tools that might use invitee UUID. However, it does not explicitly label the action as destructive or irreversible.

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 a key requirement (use event UUID not invitee UUID) which helps avoid misuse, but does not offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., after scheduling). The context is clear but lacks exclusionary language.

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