Delete a calendar (soft delete). Its events are no longer returned and it stops contributing to availability. Agent-scoped keys may only delete calendars owned by their agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| calendar_id | Yes | Calendar ID to delete |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses soft delete behavior and consequences (events no longer returned, availability stops), and a key authorization constraint. However, it omits whether the operation is reversible, error conditions, and return value details.
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, front-loaded with purpose, followed by consequences and constraints. 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?
For a simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains key behavior and a restriction. It lacks error handling or return value info, but is largely adequate for basic 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% with 'Calendar ID to delete', so baseline is 3. The main description adds no further parameter guidance (e.g., format, examples) beyond what the schema provides.
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 'Delete a calendar (soft delete)', specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_event or delete_agent by focusing on calendar. The nuance of soft delete and effects on events and availability adds specificity.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_calendar to hide, or other delete tools). The only usage constraint is about agent-scoped keys, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.
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.