delete_event

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the deletion uses 'ETag concurrency control,' which is a useful behavioral detail not present in annotations. However, it does not explain how concurrency handling works (e.g., behavior on conflict), what happens to linked resources, or what response to expect. With annotations providing a baseline, the description contributes some but not rich transparency.

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 short sentence, which is concise but comes at the expense of completeness. It earns its place by stating the core action and a key technique, but it omits critical information about parameters and usage. While not verbose, the structure is minimal and does not earn full marks for efficiency given the missing detail.

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 tool has 3 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to construct the request_id, what the scope values mean, how the event_handle relates to the ETag, or what happens upon successful deletion (e.g., return type, idempotency guarantees). The annotations provide some context, but the description leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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%, so the description bears full responsibility for explaining parameters. It does not clarify the meaning or purpose of any parameter (scope, request_id, event_handle). Even the mention of 'ETag concurrency control' does not directly explain which parameter carries the ETag. The description adds zero semantic value for parameter usage, leaving the agent to guess from parameter names and enum values.

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 the core action ('Delete an event') and adds specificity ('using ETag concurrency control'). The name and description together unambiguously identify the tool's function, and it is well-differentiated from sibling tools like create_event or update_event.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_event for modifications, or find_conflicts for coordination). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an ETag or event handle, nor any exclusion criteria. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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