delete_calendar_event

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds a human-confirmation requirement and the fact that the call resolves to null with a 204, which is useful return behavior with no output schema. The doubled 'IRREVERSIBLE IRREVERSIBLE' emphasizes the risk but reads as noise rather than new 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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the destructive warning placed where it will be read before the call. The duplicated 'IRREVERSIBLE IRREVERSIBLE' is wasted text, and the raw HTTP route/status details are somewhat implementation-flavored.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs: irreversibility + user confirmation, and the null/204 return. Nothing critical is missing, though alternatives and error behavior (e.g., non-existent id) go unmentioned.

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% (eventId documented as 'Numeric id'), so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description's '{id}' placeholder in the route adds no semantics beyond what the schema states, matching the baseline for fully-documented single-param tools.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (DELETE a calendar event by id), which is unambiguous and clearly separable from siblings like get_calendar_event, update_calendar_event, and delete_activity. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it falls short of the top mark.

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?

Gives one concrete usage instruction — confirm with the user before calling — which is real guidance for a destructive operation. However, it names no alternatives or conditions for choosing this tool over update/unschedule/delete variants, so usage is only implied by the name.

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