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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's added context is what matters most: the parenthetical 'lässt sich über den Verlauf wiederherstellen' tells the agent the deletion is reversible via history, which materially softens the destructive signal and is not derivable from the annotations. It stops short of describing what happens to recurring events or invitation recipients.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded, and the restore caveat placed immediately after in parentheses. Zero filler.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the action and its reversibility, which is the critical missing piece annotations cannot express. However, it leaves the sole parameter completely unexplained and gives no hint about obtaining a valid event_id, which is the main remaining 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?

There is one required parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining event_id — yet it says nothing about it: no mention of where the ID comes from (presumably list_calendar), its type, or scope constraints. The only semantic addition is that the event must be the user's own, which indirectly constrains which event_id is valid.

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 names a specific verb ('Löscht') and resource ('einen eigenen Termin'), and the qualifier 'eigenen' scopes it to the user's own events, which distinguishes it from the generic delete_* siblings. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with update_calendar_event.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_calendar_event or the other delete_* tools, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., needing an event_id from list_calendar). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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