calendars_remove_calendar_from_schedule

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context such as consequences of removal, whether the schedule remains intact, or any prerequisites. The description provides no value beyond the annotations and even introduces directional confusion.

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 short, it fails to accurately convey the operation's direction, making it not worth the words. The sentence is misleading rather than helpful, so it does not earn 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?

The tool requires two IDs and has no output schema; the description does not explain what happens after removal, whether the operation is idempotent (though annotation says so), or any side effects. It is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke, lacking critical context about the operation's semantics.

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 both id and calendarId are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or clarify the relationship between the parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 states 'Remove user availability schedule from a calendar', but the tool name indicates the inverse operation: removing a calendar from a schedule. This direction mismatch makes the purpose ambiguous and potentially misleading for an agent. It does specify a clear verb and resources but incorrectly reverses the relationship.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calendars_add_calendar_to_schedule or calendars_delete_schedule. The description does not mention that it is the inverse of adding a calendar to a schedule, nor does it provide any context about intended scenarios.

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