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

Annotations already mark this destructive and non-idempotent, so the low bar is easily passed — and the description adds real value on top: it declares the deletion IRREVERSIBLE once dry_run=False and prescribes a confirm-with-user protocol. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before firing an irreversible write.

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?

Three short lines, zero padding: the irreversible warning is front-loaded and the two-step procedure follows immediately. Every sentence carries operational weight.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile, the schema documents both parameters fully, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. For a two-parameter destructive tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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 100% and the schema already spells out both event_id and the dry_run default/loop semantics. The description reinforces the dry_run workflow but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields, so 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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Delete a personal calendar entry') and adds a scoping constraint — the entry must belong to 'this account' — which implicitly rules out other users' calendars. It does not name the nearest siblings (create_calendar_event, list_calendar_events), but the ownership qualifier is enough to make the target 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?

Gives an explicit procedural rule: call with dry_run=True, show the preview, and only proceed with dry_run=False after the user explicitly confirms. That is strong when-to-use guidance for a destructive tool. It stops short of the 5 bar because it never references any alternative tool or when not to use this one.

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