calendar_delete_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses it attempts a call and may return 'not_implemented', but does not cover success behavior (e.g., confirmation, side effects), required auth, or impact on other entities.

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 two sentences, immediately stating the core action. No superfluous words; it earns its place with essential info and a critical caveat.

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 existence of an output schema, return values are not needed. However, the description leaves a gap on the `entity_id` parameter and does not fully equip the agent to handle the potential non-implementation scenario. Adequate for a simple tool but incomplete for safe 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the `uid` parameter ('by its `uid`') but does not clarify `entity_id`, leaving the agent to infer its role (likely the calendar entity). Partial compensation, but incomplete.

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 explicitly states 'Delete a calendar event by its `uid`', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like calendar_create_event and calendar_list_events by the action and target.

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?

The description mentions that HA may not expose a stable service and that it reports 'not_implemented' on failure, implying it should be used when such a service is expected. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, such as fallback behaviors or prerequisite conditions.

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