Cancel a scheduled meeting

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavior burden, and it does disclose the key nuance that a live or in-overrun occurrence is by default left untouched. However, for a destructive operation it never states irreversibility, whether participants are notified, whether cancelled occurrences can be restored, or what the call returns.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the series/occurrence behavior front-loaded. 'Leaves a live occurrence unless leave_if_live is false' is slightly elliptical phrasing that costs a beat of parse time but 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?

Given a destructive, unannotated tool with no output schema, the description covers the targeting logic adequately but omits consequence information an agent needs before calling: irreversibility, permission requirements, and side effects on attendees. It is enough to invoke correctly but not enough to invoke safely.

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 both the omission semantics for 'occurrence' and the true default for 'leave_if_live' are already documented in the schema. The description restates the same behavior compactly rather than adding formats, constraints, or edge cases the schema lacks, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Cancels one occurrence, or the series', which an agent can distinguish from update_schedule or end_meeting. It does not explicitly name or compare against those siblings, but the scope (occurrence vs series) is a real disambiguator.

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?

It implies when to target a single occurrence versus the whole series ('when occurrence is omitted'), which is genuine usage guidance for the parameters. It gives no guidance on when to cancel at all versus reschedule via update_schedule, and no prerequisites or preconditions are mentioned.

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