Soft-deletes a single calendar event by id. Events imported from a calendar subscription cannot be deleted here; unsubscribe from the source calendar instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Id of the calendar event to delete. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| variant | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag this as destructive (destructiveHint: true). The description adds value by clarifying that it is a soft delete (not permanent) and by disclosing the limitation on subscription events, which is not apparent from annotations alone. It does not detail other behavioral aspects, but the annotations cover the safety profile.
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 with no wasted words: the first states the action and scope, the second provides a critical caveat. Information is front-loaded and every word 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 one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description captures the essential nuance (soft-delete semantics and subscription exclusion). No critical information is missing for the agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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?
Input schema covers the single parameter 'id' with a description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'by id' and 'single', so the schema carries the semantic weight. Baseline of 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 tool's function: 'Soft-deletes a single calendar event by id.' This specifies the verb (soft-deletes), the resource (calendar event), and the scope (single by id), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_recurring_calendar_event and list_calendar_events.
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?
Provides an explicit exclusion: events imported from a subscription cannot be deleted here, and directs users to unsubscribe from the source calendar instead. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use delete_recurring_calendar_event for recurring events, which is a relevant alternative given the sibling list.
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 separating similar-sounding tools like create_calendar_event vs create_recurring_calendar_event. Shopping list operations (add, buy, remove, update) are clearly delineated.
All tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*, get_*, etc. Even special operations like store_memory, recall_memory, and skip_recommendation fit the pattern.
With 68 tools, this server vastly exceeds a reasonable scope; the instruction manual indicates 50+ tools is an extreme mismatch. The breadth suggests the server should be split into focused sub-servers (tasks, shopping, calendar, etc.) rather than a single monolithic interface.
The tool surface covers full CRUD/lifecycle for all major resources: tasks, shopping, calendar, contacts, documents, appliances, vehicles, pets, recipes, meal plans, subscriptions, and memories. Additional features like house review, weather, and profile round out the household management domain.
