Remove the availability rules from a calendar, reverting to the default (no buffers, no working-hours mask). Returns the deleted row, or an error if none were set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| calendar_id | Yes | Calendar whose rules should be cleared |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool reverts to default (no buffers, no working-hours mask), returns the deleted row or an error if none set. This is sufficient behavioral context for a simple tool.
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?
Two sentences that are front-loaded with the action and result, followed by return value detail. No extraneous information; 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the purpose, effect, return value, and error condition. It is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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% with a single parameter 'calendar_id' described as 'Calendar whose rules should be cleared'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Remove' and the resource 'availability rules from a calendar', and explains the effect of reverting to default. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_availability_rules and get_availability_rules.
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 implies when to use (to clear rules) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide comparison to alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear descriptions that differentiate overlapping operations like cancel_event vs release_event and find_meeting_time vs get_availability.
All 54 tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_calendar, list_events, delete_webhook), with no mixing of styles or vague verbs.
With 54 tools, the server is over-scoped; the rubric considers 25+ tools as 'too many' for typical purposes, making navigation and selection harder without justification for such granularity.
The toolset provides full CRUD for agents, calendars, events, booking pages, proposals, webhooks, and iCal subscriptions, plus specialized operations like hold management, proposal resolution, and admin functions, leaving no obvious gaps.