calendars_delete_schedule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is destructive. However, the description adds nothing beyond that—it does not disclose what happens to associated calendars, appointments, or whether deletion is reversible. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, the description should add context like cascading effects, which it fails to do.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the action and object. It is front-loaded with the verb and the entity, and there is no wasted text. It is appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation.

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 complexity (one parameter, simple deletion) and that annotations cover destructiveness, one might expect a slightly richer description. However, the description omits any detail about the consequences of deletion (e.g., whether it also removes calendars from the schedule) and lacks any caveats. It is minimal to the point of being under-specified for an operation likely to have side effects, so it is not complete enough.

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 schema has a single required parameter 'id' with a clear description: 'Unique identifier of the schedule to delete'. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without extra info. The description does not add any details about the parameter (e.g., format, source), but it is not required given the schema completeness.

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 'Delete' and the resource 'schedule' with a qualifier 'user availability', which distinguishes it from other delete tools like calendars_delete_calendar. It is unambiguous but does not elaborate on what constitutes a schedule or any additional scope.

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 versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The description simply states the action without contextual cues such as 'Use when you need to permanently remove a schedule' or 'Do not use if you only want to remove a calendar from a schedule'.

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