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

Annotations say destructiveHint=false, but the description says 'delete this server's local copy of its .ics', which is a destructive action. This is a direct contradiction. The description does add context about what is untouched (own calendar, source file), but the contradiction is severe and misleads an agent about the tool's side effects. Without the contradiction, the description adds useful transparency.

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, each carrying distinct information: the core action and side effect, then scope limitations and the sibling distinction. Front-loaded with the main verb and resource; 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?

For a single-parameter deletion tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, side effects, exclusions, and a sibling alternative. It lacks explicit error/reversibility info, but the main gaps are acceptable; however, the contradiction with destructiveHint undermines overall completeness by sending conflicting signals about safety.

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?

The schema already fully documents the `name` parameter (100% coverage), including its source (calendars_list) and type. The description only repeats 'by name' and does not add constraints, formats, or behavioral details beyond the schema, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 (remove/delete), the target resource (imported calendar by name), and the side effect (deletes server-side .ics copy, frees a slot). It also explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool ics_import, which replaces instead of removes, making purpose 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 signals this tool is for removing/freeing imported calendars and notes that ics_import handles replacing in place, giving an implicit when-to-use versus an alternative. It does not explicitly enumerate scenarios when not to use it (e.g., for non-imported calendars), though 'imported' is mentioned, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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