delete-calendar

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds critical behavioral details: it deletes all events in the calendar, the default calendar is protected, and the action is irreversible. This gives the agent a complete picture of side effects and consequences, going beyond what structured metadata provides.

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?

Extremely concise: a single sentence stating the action and constraint, followed by a brief tip with two key consequences. No filler, and the most important information is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 tool, the description covers the essential: what it does, the cascade effect, the default calendar restriction, and irreversibility. It does not explicitly mention the confirmation gate or response behavior, but those are already covered in the schema and annotations. Given the moderate complexity and high annotation coverage, this is quite complete.

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 input schema fully documents all parameters (calendarId, confirm, If-Match, etc.) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond hinting that calendarId must refer to a non-default calendar. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to compensate, and it adds minimal extra value here.

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 (delete), the resource (calendar), and a key constraint (other than the default calendar). It also mentions that it deletes all events, which adds specificity and distinguishes it from other calendar-related tools like update-calendar or delete-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?

The description explicitly states that the default calendar cannot be deleted, which tells the agent when NOT to use it. It does not name alternative tools, but this is the only tool for deleting a calendar, so that distinction is sufficient. The guidance is clear enough for correct selection.

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