delete_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention that deletion is permanent, the impact on associated data, permission requirements, or error behavior. The description only states the action and return value, which is insufficient 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?

The description is exceptionally concise, with a clear structure using Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, with no redundancy or filler.

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, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context about side effects, reversibility, ordering, or relationships with other entities (e.g., whether deleting events also affects assigned instruments). The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the overall description does not sufficiently prepare the agent for a destructive operation.

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 schema describes 'events' as an array of strings with no further detail. The description adds that it is a 'List of unique event names', which clarifies the semantic meaning and adds a uniqueness constraint. However, it does not specify the exact format of event names or how they should be obtained, leaving some ambiguity.

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 operation ('Delete events') and specifies the resource ('events') within a 'longitudinal REDCap project'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_file and delete_records, which target different resource types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions or constraints (e.g., whether events with data can be deleted). It simply states the action without context for decision-making.

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