swapcard_delete_event_people

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The word 'permanently' indicates irreversibility, but there is no mention of side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens to related data (e.g., meetings, documents). This is minimal coverage for a destructive operation.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. No fluff or redundancy; 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?

For a deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not mention expected outcomes, error handling, or any behavioral caveats. While the action is simple, the lack of guidance leaves the agent with significant gaps in understanding.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies that eventPeopleIds are 'Swapcard person IDs', but does not explain eventId or provide format, constraints, or additional context. The description adds minimal value over the bare names.

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 (permanently delete), the resource (people from an event), and the targeting mechanism (by Swapcard person IDs). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_event_people or import_event_people.

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 versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. It lacks information about required permissions, implications of deletion, or error conditions.

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