delete_event

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

The description discloses that deletion is permanent and irreversible, and that the event is removed entirely (not marked cancelled). No annotations are provided, so the description carries this burden well, though it could mention any side effects or authorization 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?

The description is concise, using three sentences: action, behavioral detail, and usage note. No unnecessary words.

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 simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does, its permanent effect, a restriction, and a prerequisite. It does not discuss errors or return values, but this is acceptable given the simplicity.

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?

The schema already documents the eventId parameter with a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% coverage, a score of 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 clearly states the tool permanently deletes an event (removes entirely, not cancels). It specifies that it only works for AI-created or community events, distinguishing it from other tools like edit_event and create_event.

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 advises to use search_event first to verify the event ID, and states the tool only works for AI-created or community events, implying when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives.

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