delete_calendar_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and scope, failing to disclose that deletion is likely irreversible, may notify attendees, or affects linked meeting chats. The side-effect of dissolving a meeting chat is only mentioned in the schema, not the description.

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 concise, with one sentence plus a scope requirement. The version prefix ('Official API + UAT, v1.3.7') adds minor noise, but otherwise the text is front-loaded and efficient.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is insufficient. It omits whether deletion is reversible, what response format to expect, and what happens to linked resources like meeting chats. More context is needed for safe and correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'calendar event', making its function unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_calendar_event by the action it performs, even if it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_calendar_event or respond_calendar_event. It only mentions the required scope, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selection.

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