calendar_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so irreversibility is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: deletion is keyed on an ETag (optimistic concurrency), whole_series wipes ALL occurrences and is gated on user intent, and attendee meetings are out of scope. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive scope constraint and the whole_series caveat front-loaded before the exclusion note. Every clause earns its place.

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 cover safety, the description supplies the caveats an agent actually needs: ETag requirement, whole_series semantics, and the attendee-meeting restriction. Only minor omissions remain (e.g., exact response/error behavior on a stale ETag).

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 must carry the load. It explains the ETag's role in identifying the event version and fully defines whole_series (deletes ALL occurrences, requires user intent). event_id is left implicit but is self-evident from its name, so the gap is minor.

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+resource ('Delete a personal event') and immediately narrows scope with two disqualifiers (attendee meetings unsupported; whole_series requires explicit user intent). This lets an agent distinguish it from calendar_update, calendar_discard_draft, and the other calendar siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states a when-not-to-use condition ('Attendee meetings are not supported') and an intent precondition for whole_series deletion, which is the key judgment call for this tool. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling for meeting deletion, so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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