cancel_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Cancel an event' without explaining what cancellation entails (e.g., effect on attendees, reversibility, or notifications). This is insufficient for an agent to understand consequences.

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 very concise (three words). While efficient, it could include more information without becoming verbose. It is front-loaded but leaves gaps.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema) and no annotations, the description is too terse. It omits return value, error conditions, and does not clarify how cancellation differs from deletion. The sibling tools increase the need for differentiation which is missing.

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 the parameter is already documented. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides. A score of 3 reflects the adequate but minimal value added.

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 action (cancel) and resource (event). It distinguishes from siblings like delete_event by implying a soft-cancel vs permanent delete, though this nuance is not explicit. A score of 4 is appropriate as it lacks the extra detail to differentiate fully.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like delete_event or publish_event. The description does not mention prerequisites or ideal usage scenarios.

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