teamleader_cancel_event

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, signaling the destructive nature. The description adds the 'for all attendees' scope, which implies broad impact (e.g., all attendees are affected), but it does not disclose irreversibility, notifications, or permission requirements. It adds some context beyond the annotation but not a full behavioral picture.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word adds value, stating the action, the resource, and the scope.

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 one-parameter tool with a destructiveHint annotation, the description provides the core action and scope. It does not explain return values or side effects, but these are not essential for invocation. It could mention irreversibility, but the annotation and purpose cover the main concerns.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for the single 'id' parameter ('The event ID to cancel'). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('calendar event'), and adds a clear scope ('for all attendees') that differentiates it from siblings like teamleader_update_event or teamleader_create_event. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does.

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 implies usage when an event needs to be cancelled, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. There is no competing cancel sibling, so ambiguity is low, but explicit guidance is missing.

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