calendars_delete_calendar_resource

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the mutation safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as irreversibility, side effects on related appointments, or permission requirements. It's consistent with annotations but contributes nothing extra, so a 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced 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?

At three words, the description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the action. However, this brevity borders on under-specification; it lacks any auxiliary detail that would help an agent, such as context about resource types or deletion consequences. It's not inefficient, but it offers minimal informational value.

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 operation with two parameters, the description does not explain when to choose this over similar tools, nor does it mention potential impacts on schedules or the irreversible nature (though destructiveHint covers the latter). Without output schema, the agent gets no guidance on expected outcomes. The description is sparse relative to the information needed for confident invocation.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters: 'id' described as 'Calendar Resource ID' and 'resourceType' as 'Calendar Resource Type' with an enum. The description doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema, but since schema is complete, the 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 'Delete Calendar Resource' clearly states a specific verb (delete) and resource (calendar resource), making the primary purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like calendars_delete_calendar, the name itself carries the distinction, and the enum of resourceType (equipments/rooms) adds clarity. It's slightly above average because it conveys action and target precisely.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calendars_delete_calendar or calendars_update_calendar_resource. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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