delete_calendar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It prominently warns that the action cannot be undone and states that all events will be deleted, which are the two most critical behavioral traits for a destructive operation. It does not address permissions or shared-calendar implications, but the core danger is clearly disclosed.

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 two sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the destructive nature and warning, then provides the trigger phrases, so an agent gets the most critical information immediately.

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-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is largely complete. It covers the action, irreversibility, side effects on events, and when to use it. The only minor gap is the absence of guidance on what to do for non-calendar deletion requests, but this is already handled by sibling differentiation.

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 100%, and the schema's parameter description ('The URL of the calendar to delete (get from list_calendars)') is already helpful by pointing to the source. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action ('Permanently delete'), a specific resource ('a calendar'), and the consequence ('all its events'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_event or update_calendar. The scope is unambiguous and matches the tool name exactly.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: when the user asks to 'delete calendar' or 'remove calendar'. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., use delete_event for removing individual events), so it stops short of full conditional guidance.

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