Delete a recurring calendar event and all its future instances.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Id of the recurring calendar event (template) to delete. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| variant | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "0198f3a1b2c34d5e6f7089ab1c2d3e4f"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"Id of the recurring calendar event (template) to delete."Input schema / properties / id / examplesAdded value: +[
+ "0198f3a1b2c34d5e6f7089ab1c2d3e4f"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive behavior; the description adds the key nuance that all future instances are deleted, which is important for an agent to know before invoking. It does not describe past instances or permissions, but the additional scope context is valuable.
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?
A single, direct sentence with no redundant words, front-loading the action and critical scope.
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 delete tool with an output schema and annotations, the description fully covers the action and its most important side effect (future instances), making it sufficient for an agent to select and 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?
The schema provides a clear description of the id parameter as the template's id, and the tool description reinforces the recurring-event context. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional parameter-level detail.
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 action (Delete), the resource (recurring calendar event), and the scope (all future instances), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_calendar_event and delete_recurring_task.
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 that this tool is for deleting the entire recurring series (template and future instances), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving usage guidance implicit.
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.