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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the delete is permanent or recoverable, that cancellation notices go out (send_updates defaults to "all"), or that attendees are notified. For a destructive mutation this is a meaningful gap.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently sized for the information it chooses to convey, though that efficiency comes partly from saying very little.

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 destructive tool with four parameters, notification side effects, and an optional non-default account/calendar selector, the description omits anything an agent would want before calling it: irreversibility, attendee notification behavior, and account/calendar scoping. No output schema exists, so nothing else fills that gap.

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% and all four parameters, including the send_updates enum and calendar_id default, are documented in the schema itself. The description only restates event_id, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 event") plus the identifying key ("by its event ID"), so an agent knows exactly what it does. It does not differentiate against siblings like gws-mcp__calendar_update_event or calendar_get_event, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent when deletion is preferable to calendar_update_event, whether the event must exist first, or what to do if the ID is unknown. Usage is only implied by the verb itself.

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