Delete an event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose one genuinely important trait: deletion leaves a null hole rather than compacting the array, so other event indices remain stable. It says nothing about error behavior for a missing eventId, whether the map must be loaded or a live session active, or permissions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding: verb, resource, and resulting state in order of importance. The trailing "as the editor does" is mildly vague but still conveys that behavior matches the editor's own delete.

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 two-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the post-condition (null hole, no reindexing) but omits prerequisites, failure modes, and return behavior. It is adequate for the core action but not complete.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. The "null hole in the events array" phrasing implicitly suggests eventId is an array index, which is useful, but mapId is left entirely unexplained and the index semantics are only implied, not stated.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Delete an event from a map"), which is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near siblings such as clear_events, place_event, or copy_event, so an agent must infer the routing itself.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like clear_events (bulk removal) or place_event/copy_event (creation). The only contextual hint is "as the editor does," which describes the resulting state, not the conditions for calling the tool.

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