calendars_delete_group

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: true, and openWorldHint: true, so the description does not need to restate these. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what happens to associated calendars, events, or schedules when a group is deleted, or whether the operation is reversible. It fails to enrich the annotation information.

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?

While the description is extremely short with no wasted words, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks structure or any elaboration that would aid an agent. The brevity is a symptom of incompleteness, not disciplined conciseness.

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 this is a destructive operation with no output schema, the description should explain what a group is, the consequences of deletion, and any relevant context. The current description is inadequate for an agent to understand the operation's scope and implications, even though the parameter is simple.

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 coverage is 100% for the single required parameter groupId, which already includes a description 'Group Id'. The tool description adds nothing beyond this, but because the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline score of 3 applies. There is no additional meaning or context provided.

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 Group' is a near-tautology of the tool name 'calendars_delete_group'. It identifies the verb and resource but provides no context about what a 'group' is in the calendar domain or what deleting it entails. It does not distinguish this from sibling delete operations like calendars_delete_calendar or calendars_delete_schedule, which could be easily confused.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from alternatives. An agent cannot determine whether deleting a group is appropriate for a given task or whether a different calendar operation should be chosen. No exclusions, context, or alternative routing is provided.

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