trmnl_delete_room_booking_calendar

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the deletion propagates to every device, and externally-synced calendars are outside its reach. It does not say whether the effect is reversible or what happens to devices bound to the calendar, which would be the final step to a 5.

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 first three sentences are front-loaded and each earns its place, leading with the action, then the side effect, then the exclusion. The trailing 'Changes remote state or starts work. Run only within the user-authorized scope.' is generic boilerplate that restates what destructiveHint/openWorldHint already convey.

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, no-output-schema tool whose annotations already flag the risk, the description supplies the operational essentials: what vanishes, from where, and which calendar types are unaffected. The main omission is the post-state — whether devices are unbound and whether the operation can be undone — which matters for a cascade delete.

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%: 'id' and 'profile' are documented in the schema, while the nested 'path' object is not. The description contributes only the REST path template showing where installation_id and id are placed, which adds marginal meaning. At this coverage level the description neither fully compensates nor is obligated to, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('iCal calendar') and immediately clarifies the blast radius ('Takes it off every device'). It also carves out what it is NOT for (Google/Microsoft calendars), which lets an agent route the wrong request elsewhere before invoking. It stops short of naming a sibling tool, so it does not fully satisfy the sibling-differentiation bar for a 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?

Provides an explicit when-not: a Google or Microsoft calendar is not deleted here and should be deselected from its account in the browser. It also adds a scoping caveat ('Run only within the user-authorized scope'). However, it never points to the relevant sibling (e.g. trmnl_list_room_booking_calendars to obtain the id, or trmnl_update_room_booking_calendar for renaming), leaving that inference to the agent.

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