cancel_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Cancel' implies a state change, but the description does not state whether cancellation is reversible, whether it deletes the event or marks it as canceled, whether it notifies attendees, or what conditions must be met (e.g., event ownership). This is almost no behavioral transparency.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks the detail needed for a mutation tool, and the sentence essentially restates the tool name with little added value.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain side effects, prerequisites, return values, or edge cases (e.g., canceling a non-existent event). For a 2-param tool, the description provides only the basic purpose and leaves the agent with many unknowns.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions: event_uuid is 'UUID of the event to cancel' and reason is 'Reason for cancellation'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not clarify formats or optionality beyond the schema.

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 'Cancel a specific event' uses a clear verb (cancel) and resource (event), and the specificity distinguishes it from siblings like schedule_event or get_event. However, it lacks any additional scope or clarification that would make it a 5, such as mentioning the event must already exist or that cancellation is permanent.

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. It does not mention that this should be used for events created via schedule_event, nor does it exclude events that are already canceled or in the past. Without any context or alternatives, the agent receives no usage direction.

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