delete_calendar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it warns that deletion cascades to all events, that it is irreversible on servers without a trash bin, and that trash-enabled servers like Nextcloud retain it temporarily. The main gap is that it says nothing about required permissions or auth for a destructive operation.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the destructive WARNING is placed prominently right after the core action rather than buried. 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 single-param destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what an agent most needs: cascade scope and reversibility variability across servers. Permission/auth expectations are the one notable omission.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents calendar_url and even tells the caller to obtain it from list_calendars. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Delete a calendar') plus the cascade scope ('and all its events'), which is exactly what distinguishes it from sibling delete_event. An agent can tell it apart from delete_event and update_calendar without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition: use when the user explicitly asks to 'delete calendar' or 'remove calendar'. This is actionable routing guidance, though it does not name alternatives (e.g. delete_event for single events) to fully close the loop.

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