delete_calendar

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Delete an existing calendar.' It does not state whether the deletion is permanent, irreversible, or whether it cascades to associated events or other data. For a destructive operation, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 sentence with no filler words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise and easy to parse, though the brevity contributes to the lack of context in other dimensions. It earns its place but could have been expanded with minimal cost.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, this description is insufficient. It does not explain how to identify the target calendar, what the consequences of deletion are, or what the expected response is. An agent would need to guess or consult other sources to call this correctly.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the parameters 'id' and 'campaignId.' An agent cannot determine which ID is which or how they relate to the calendar being deleted, so the description adds no meaning beyond the raw parameter names.

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 a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('calendar'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_calendar, update_calendar, get_calendar, and list_calendars. It is straightforward and leaves no doubt about the tool's core function, though it adds no detail beyond the operation itself.

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 this tool should be used versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing the calendar ID and campaign ID), and no exclusion cases. The description simply names the action without contextualizing when it is appropriate or when a different tool might be preferable.

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