Delete subcalendar

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

Annotations already flag the operation as destructive, and the description adds 'permanently', clarifying irreversibility. However, it does not disclose critical behavioral details such as whether deleting a subcalendar also deletes its events or whether it fails if non-empty, leaving a gap beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentence stating the core action, followed by an API documentation link. It is front-loaded, efficient, and free of redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter delete tool, the description covers the basic action, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., cascading deletes, prerequisites) and success/failure behavior. Annotations and schema help, but the description alone is minimally adequate.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage and describes subcalendarId as 'kalender.digital subcalendar ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 clearly states 'Permanently delete a kalender.digital subcalendar', specifying the verb (delete), the resource (subcalendar), and permanence. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_event and update_subcalendar.

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?

The purpose itself makes the usage context clear: use this when you need to permanently remove a subcalendar. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the action is unambiguous and there is no alternative deletion tool for subcalendars.

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