delete_personal_calendar_event

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds that it deletes 'exactos' (exact) events or series, implying precision and no tolerance for mismatches, and that they must have been 'aprobados' (approved) in preview. This adds some behavioral nuance beyond the annotations, but does not clarify the role of the confirmation_token or the irreversibility of the action beyond what the destructive hint implies.

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 with no filler, and the key qualifier (exact, approved in preview) is placed upfront. It is concise and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful detail, so it earns a 4 rather than 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 tool requiring a confirmation_token, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the confirmation flow, the meaning of 'series' versus 'single' events, or what happens if the token is invalid. There is no output schema, and the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The context provided is minimal, leaving an agent uncertain about prerequisites and behavior.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention event_id, scope, or confirmation_token explicitly. The only indirect reference is 'serie' which could relate to the 'scope' parameter (default 'single'), but this is not made clear. The description entirely fails to clarify the meaning or purpose of the required confirmation_token, leaving the agent without essential parameter understanding.

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 states the verb 'Borra' (deletes) and the resource 'evento personal o serie' (personal event or series), with the qualifier 'exactos aprobados en la vista previa' (exact ones approved in the preview). This clearly differentiates it from other delete tools and indicates it is the execution step after a preview. However, 'serie' is not explicitly defined, and the tool's purpose could be slightly more explicit about the requirement for a confirmation token.

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 phrase 'aprobados en la vista previa' implies that this tool should be used only after a preview step (e.g., preview_delete_personal_calendar_event) has been completed, but it does not explicitly state 'use after preview' or mention alternatives. It gives contextual guidance that this is the final delete after approval, but it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with sibling tools.

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