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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by disclosing soft-delete semantics, the side effect that events stop being returned, and the loss of availability contribution, plus an ownership-based authorization rule. It stops short of saying whether or how the calendar can be restored or what happens to the underlying event records, which are the remaining behavioral questions for a delete 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its soft-delete nature, then consequences, then permissions. No sentence restates the name or wastes the reader's attention.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, coverage is strong: side effects, availability impact, and authorization are all stated, and annotations carry reversibility/idempotency hints. The only gap is the absence of any note on recovery or on the failure mode when ownership checks fail.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines calendar_id fully. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance for obtaining the ID, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Delete a calendar') and immediately qualifies the operation as a soft delete, which distinguishes it from hard-delete siblings like delete_agent or delete_webhook even though they target other resources. The scope is unambiguous from the first clause.

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 final sentence gives a concrete precondition — agent keys can only delete calendars owned by their agent — which tells the agent when the call will fail. It does not, however, point to an alternative such as update_calendar or explain how to handle a calendar the agent does not own, so no explicit alternative routing is offered.

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