delete_eventDelete a specified Google Calendar event by event ID, with optional calendar ID for non-primary calendars.
Delete a calendar event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes | The event ID to delete | |
| calendar_id | No | Calendar ID (default: 'primary') | primary |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a destructive mutation but does not disclose irreversibility, required permissions, effects on recurring events, or any safety considerations.
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 efficient sentence with zero waste and is front-loaded with the core action. It is slightly under-specified for a destructive operation but is structurally concise.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a destructive mutation with no annotations, the description should provide more safety and usage context; it currently lacks essential behavioral completeness.
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%, so the schema already documents event_id and calendar_id clearly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a calendar event'), so the agent can identify the operation. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like update_event or create_event beyond the verb alone.
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 to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as required permissions or confirmation steps. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.