Cancel Calendar Event

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds crucial behavioral context: the cancellation notice cannot be recalled, the tool refuses to cancel events for non-organizers, and recurring events require apply_to before anything is cancelled. This enriches the annotation without contradiction.

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 and well-structured: three short paragraphs, each serving a distinct purpose (main action, authorization/alternative, recurring rule). No redundancy or filler; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 annotations, output schema, and full parameter coverage, the description is complete. It covers the action, recipient notification, irreversibility, authorization, alternative tool, and recurring behavior. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly highlighting the consequence of not supplying apply_to ('nothing is cancelled') and reinforcing that apply_to is required for recurring events, which is useful beyond the schema's static description.

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 explicitly states the action: 'Cancel an event YOU organize and notify the attendees.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by clarifying that only the organizer can cancel and directing users to respond_to_event for declining someone else's event. This is a specific verb+resource with clear sibling differentiation.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it refuses to cancel others' events and directs users to respond_to_event instead. It also specifies that apply_to is required for recurring events, and nothing is cancelled until provided, offering clear procedural guidance.

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