event_delete

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

No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Delete') but does not disclose potential irreversibility, cascade effects (e.g., deleting related items), or any specific behavior beyond the basic action. The description omits safety-related details that a deletion tool typically should mention, such as confirmation requirements or what happens to dependent objects.

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 and to the point, containing only the necessary action and one parameter hint. It is front-loaded and contains no waste, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., adding a usage note), but the brevity is appropriate for the simple action.

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 the lack of annotations, the absence of an output schema, and the minimal description, the tool is not fully documented. The single parameter is partially described, but the deletion behavior remains opaque, and the context for when to use it is absent. For a destructive operation, this level of completeness is insufficient for safe and correct agent usage.

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 description adds minimal information about the 'target' parameter by specifying its expected format ('event:// path or {guid}'), which is valuable because the input schema lacks descriptions (0% coverage). However, the parameter semantics are still only partially explained; additional format details or examples could further aid the agent, but the provided format hint is a reasonable baseline given the schema gap.

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 states the action ('Delete an event') and identifies the resource type (event). While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like utility_delete or utility_validate, the verb+object combination is clear and provides sufficient clarity for the tool's primary purpose.

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 (e.g., utility_delete for generic deletion, or marker_delete for other resource types). It does not specify any exclusions, prerequisites, or context for deletion, leaving the agent without decision support regarding alternative tools.

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