delete_event

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It explicitly states 'cannot be undone' and 'removed from the server immediately', which are critical. It also explains the etag's role in conflict detection. This is thorough, though it omits potential permission requirements or the exact nature of error handling, keeping it just below a perfect score.

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 four well-structured sentences. The irreversibility warning is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and parameter sourcing. Every sentence adds essential information with zero 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 delete operation, the description covers the critical aspects: irreversibility, user authorization, how to retrieve required parameters, and conflict detection via etag. No output schema exists, so the lack of return-format details is acceptable. A small gap is the absence of mention of what happens on etag mismatch, but this is likely handled by error messages.

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 already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (coverage 100%), including where to obtain them. The description adds minimal new semantic value beyond restating the source, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'delete' with the resource 'calendar event', and includes the key qualifier 'permanently' plus a warning. This clearly distinguishes it from update_event_raw, create_event, and other sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use only when the user explicitly requests deletion, and directs obtaining the event URL and etag from list_events or calendar_query first. This provides both a condition and a step-by-step acquisition path, leaving no ambiguity.

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