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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags the risk, but the description adds real value beyond it by clarifying that this is permanent removal from the user's calendar (no trash/undo path) and that user confirmation is required. It does not cover error behavior for nonexistent or recurring events, so it is not exhaustive.

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, zero filler, with the irreversible nature and the confirmation requirement front-loaded ahead of the parameter note. Every sentence 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?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers permanence, the confirmation gate, and the key conditional parameter. Minor gaps remain around failure modes (event not found, recurring series deletion scope), but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including the account-required condition. The description's account sentence largely restates the schema's own wording, adding little new syntax or format meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Delete) plus resource (Google Calendar event) and adds the crucial scope qualifier 'permanently', which distinguishes it from soft-delete siblings like trash_message and from unrelated deletes like delete_label or delete_slack_message. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('confirm with the user before calling') and the condition for the account parameter ('when more than one calendar-capable account is connected'). It does not name alternative tools (e.g., update_event to modify instead of remove), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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