Delete calendar object

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — it does not say whether the deletion is permanent or goes to a trash/recycle path (the sibling list includes restore_trash_item, implying recoverability may or may not apply here), nor what happens when the object does not exist. Restating the HTTP DELETE verb is not added value.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the actual behavior, with zero filler prose. The raw endpoint line is developer-facing noise that does not earn much of its place, which keeps it from a 5.

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, open-world operation with one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description should at minimum state permanence/recoverability and what the confirm interaction means in practice. Instead it delegates everything to annotations and the schema, leaving the agent to guess at data-loss consequences before an irreversible call.

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 50%: `confirm` is documented in the schema itself, while `object_url` has no schema description. The DAV path template `{user}/{calendar}/{object}.ics` gives a partial hint about the expected object URL shape, but it does not resolve whether a full absolute URL, a path, or an opaque identifier is expected. Meaningful but incomplete compensation.

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?

"Delete one event or task" states a specific verb and resource, and the phrase "one event or task" signals object-level scope as distinct from calendar-level deletion (nextcloud_delete_calendar) or card/note deletion siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling to route against, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says to locate the object first via nextcloud_get_calendar_object, nothing distinguishes deleting an event from deleting a task, and no alternative is named. The agent is left to infer the entire selection context 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.