calendar_cancel_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'requires approval' which hints at an authentication/permission requirement, but doesn't explain what 'cancel' actually does (e.g., deletes event, sends cancellation notices, affects attendees), whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, with no wasted language. The key information ('Cancel an event') is front-loaded, and the parenthetical '(requires approval)' efficiently adds crucial context. Every word 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 this is a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. The 'requires approval' hint addresses a key complexity, but doesn't fully explain the approval workflow or what cancellation entails. The output schema reduces the burden, but more behavioral context would be helpful.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'requires approval' which loosely relates to the 'approval_id' parameter, but doesn't explain what 'event_id' is, what format it should be in, or how the approval process works. It adds minimal value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the action ('Cancel') and resource ('an event'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'calendar_update_event' or 'calendar_list_events', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

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 mentions 'requires approval' which provides some context about prerequisites, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calendar_update_event' to modify instead of cancel, or how it relates to the 'approval_request' and 'approval_resolve' sibling tools. No explicit guidance on when-not-to-use or alternatives is provided.

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