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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the deletion is executed at the provider and propagates to mirrored calendars via sync, and only self-created events are addressable. This goes beyond the generic destructive hint.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose, then add a constraint and a behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering destructive intent, the description covers the essential aspects: what is deleted, the self-created scope, and sync behavior. It does not mention error cases or the role of calendar_id, but the core usage is fully explained.

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 coverage is 50% — event_id has a description ('Identifier from create_event'), but calendar_id is undocumented. The description reinforces the event_id semantics by linking it to create_event and self-created events, but provides no clarification for calendar_id, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 ('Deletes an event') and specifies the exact resource scope (events that THIS access created itself). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_event and create_event by emphasizing the self-created constraint.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: only for events created by the same access via create_event. It also states an exclusion ('Events created by anyone else are not addressable'), but does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison.

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