Cancel Event

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds material context beyond that: it mutates Calendly state and requires the scheduled_events:write scope, which is auth information not present in the structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the precondition and scope. No filler, though the leading 'Cancel Event' repeats the title verbatim rather than adding information.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key gaps an agent needs: it changes Calendly state, it needs confirmation, and it requires a write scope. It stops short of describing side effects such as invitee notifications or post-cancellation state, but the annotations carry the destructive signal.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (including confirm, account, payload, and payload_file) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the confirm=true requirement, adding no syntax or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides. 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?

Names a specific verb (Cancel) and resource (Event), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the nearby delete_scheduled_event_data or delete_invitee_data siblings, which an agent might reasonably confuse with a cancellation.

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 states a precondition (confirm=true must accompany the specific requested action) and the required OAuth scope, which tells the agent how to invoke it correctly. It gives no guidance on when to prefer cancel_event over the deletion siblings or what conditions make cancellation the right choice.

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