Delete event

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured consequences — that workflows and segments triggering on the event will stop working and that the deletion is project-wide rather than contact-scoped — plus the return shape ('confirmation of the deletion') for a tool with no output schema. It stops short of describing irreversibility or recovery, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Four labeled sections, each one sentence, with purpose and the destructive consequence front-loaded before the prerequisite. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, exclusions, side effects, prerequisite check, and return confirmation. The only omission is any guidance on the input format or on error behavior when the event name does not exist.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the meaning. It implies the parameter is an event name via 'an event name was created in error' and the project-wide scope, but adds no format, casing, or lookup guidance (e.g., that names come from plunk_list_event_names). Baseline 3 for a single self-describing parameter with a small gap.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (event) with explicit scope: the event and its recorded history are removed from the whole project. It also names what it is NOT (removing one contact's event record), which cleanly separates it from plunk_get_contact_events and other event siblings.

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 'Use when' section gives a concrete trigger (an event name was created in error and nothing references it) and an explicit pre-flight step (check plunk_get_event_usage first). The 'Not for' line rules out the adjacent per-contact use case, so an agent has both inclusion and exclusion criteria.

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