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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating 'This is destructive'. It adds valuable context beyond annotations by instructing the agent to resolve and confirm the calendar and to never infer the ID, which is a critical behavioral guardrail not expressed in the schema or annotations.

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 zero redundancy. The action is front-loaded, and the safety warning follows immediately. Every word earns its place; no filler or vague language.

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 delete tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the key risks (destructive nature, ID resolution) and the required parameter. It doesn't describe return values, but none are expected. The inclusion of the confirmation guidance makes it complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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 the schema already explains the calendar_id parameter, including how to obtain it and never pass a display name. The description reiterates the 'never infer' warning but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'one exact calendar', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendar_delete_event. It also adds the qualifier 'exact' to set precision expectations. This is specific and 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?

The description does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but it provides critical usage guidance: resolve and confirm the calendar before deleting, and never infer the ID from its display name. This gives clear context for safe invocation, even though it doesn't contrast with siblings.

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