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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds context beyond annotations: deletion is scoped to the connected account's calendarasi and the parent calendar_id must be preserved. This provides useful operational detail without contradicting the 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every phrase carries weight. It avoids repeating schema content, delivering only the essential behavioral scope and caution in 26 words.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description combined with the rich parameter schema and annotations covers all necessary details: the event to delete, the required IDs, and the scope. The account_id parameter is fully explained in the schema. No critical contextual gap exists.

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 each parameter is thoroughly documented (event_id must be exact and never a title/date; calendar_id must be exact and never a name; account_id is optional for single-account contexts). The description's mention of preserving calendar_id reinforces the schema but adds minimal new meaning. The baseline 3 applies.

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 title and description clearly state the action ('Delete') and the resource ('resolved calendar event'). The phrase 'removes it only from the connected account's calendar' distinguishes this tool from siblings like calendar_cancel_event or calendar_delete_calendar, clarifying it deletes a specific event instance within a single account.

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 usage by specifying 'resolved' event and the scope (only from connected account's calendar), but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool. The caution to 'Confirm the intended event' is a usage note, but no direct comparison to calendar_cancel_event or calendar_restore_event is made.

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