Discard a pending local calendar draft using its last-read hash. It does not delete an iCloud event, and creation-attempt records cannot be discarded.
Discard a pending local calendar draft using its last-read hash. Does not delete an iCloud event. Creation-attempt records cannot be discarded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| arguments | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds valuable scope beyond them: destruction is confined to the local draft (not the iCloud event) and creation-attempt records are non-discardable. The 'last-read hash' phrasing hints at an optimistic-concurrency guard.
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, all front-loaded with the core action first, then scope, then the exclusion. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.
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 single-argument destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety-scope question, the concurrency mechanism, and a key precondition. It stops short of describing post-discard behavior or error cases, but is otherwise sufficient to call correctly.
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 low, so the description must compensate. It explains 'using its last-read hash,' which maps to the expected_sha256 concurrency token, but says nothing about draft_id, and the hash's role is only implied rather than spelled out.
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 and resource: 'Discard a pending local calendar draft.' It distinguishes itself from the destructive calendar_delete sibling by clarifying it 'Does not delete an iCloud event,' making the local scope explicit.
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 exclusion conditions ('Does not delete an iCloud event,' 'Creation-attempt records cannot be discarded') that help an agent decide what this tool won't do, but never names an alternative tool (e.g. calendar_delete) or states positively when to reach for this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.