delete-calendar-event

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

The description discloses important behavioral side effects: deleting an organizer's event sends a cancellation message to attendees. It also explains the cascading behavior for seriesMaster. Annotations already mark destructiveHint true, so the destructive nature is known, but the description adds specific consequences that an agent needs to anticipate. It does not mention the confirm gate, but the schema documents that parameter, so this is adequately covered elsewhere.

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 concise and well-structured: the core action is stated first, followed by a relevant behavioral note, and a tip for recurring events. No redundant sentences. The tip is valuable and earns its place. Slightly longer than the minimum, but each sentence adds meaningful information.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (reacting to series/instance behavior and meeting cancellation), the description covers the critical behavioral nuances. The schema handles parameter semantics, and output schema is absent so no return info is expected. The description could have mentioned the confirm gate, but that is documented in the schema, so completeness is acceptable. It is adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides; it only touches on eventId interpretation implicitly via the recurring-event tip. Since the schema carries the full parameter documentation, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Removes') and resource ('specified event from the containing calendar'), and it implicitly distinguishes from sibling cancel-calendar-event by noting that deleting the organizer's event sends a cancellation message. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with cancel-calendar-event or delete-specific-calendar-event, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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 provides a concrete usage guideline for recurring events: it explains that deleting a seriesMaster deletes all occurrences and directs to delete a specific instance ID from list-calendar-event-instances for a single occurrence. This gives a when-to-use alternative. It stops short of explicitly recommending this tool over cancel-calendar-event for any scenario, but the recurring-event guidance is practical and actionable.

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