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

The term 'soft-deletes' adds behavioral nuance beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, indicating the deletion is not a hard/permanent removal. The description also discloses important behavioral constraints based on event provenance and ownership, which the annotations do not convey.

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 concise sentences, each providing necessary value: the first defines the operation, the second gives an alternative for filtered events, and the third states access restrictions. No redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter mutation with annotations and an output schema present, the description fully covers what the tool does, its edge cases, and permission requirements. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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%, so the single 'id' parameter is already well documented as 'Id of the calendar event to delete.' The description adds 'by id' and 'single event' context, but does not need to elaborate further given the schema's completeness.

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 ('soft-deletes') and resource ('a single calendar event by id'), immediately clarifying scope and distinguishing it from sibling delete_recurring_calendar_event. The description also names what cannot be deleted here, reinforcing the tool's precise purpose.

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?

Explicitly says when not to use this tool: events from calendar subscriptions cannot be deleted here, with the alternative 'unsubscribe from the source calendar instead.' It also states permission constraints for shared device calendar events, giving clear usage conditions and exclusions.

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