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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so irreversibility is partly covered, but the description adds real context beyond that: pre-existing events survive, no notifications are sent ('nobody is told'), and re-import is possible. It doesn't say what happens on a bad or already-undone id, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the safety-relevant facts. The 'as Remove imported events does in the app' clause is the only slightly expendable line, but it usefully maps to UI behavior.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical agent concerns: irreversibility, preserved pre-existing events, silence toward attendees, and recoverability via re-import. The unresolved meaning of the 'id' parameter is the remaining hole.

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 single required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage and the description never says what it identifies — the calendar import id, the calendar id, or the file. With no schema text to lean on, this is a meaningful gap for the one input the agent must supply.

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 specific verb and resource ('Remove every event one calendar import added') with scope nailed down to a single import, and names the in-app equivalent ('Remove imported events'). An agent can distinguish it from undoContactImport and cancelImport without opening a schema.

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?

Implicitly frames when to use it (reversing a completed calendar import) and notes that a chat asks first, which hints at a confirmation flow. However, it never names alternatives such as cancelImport, cancelProviderImport, or listCalendarImports, nor does it state prerequisites for choosing this tool over them.

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