calendar_delete_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one valuable trait: deleting an unknown uid succeeds, so retries are safe (idempotency). It still omits permission requirements, whether deletion is soft/reversible, and side effects such as attendee notifications, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the idempotency caveat, followed by a compact Args block. Every sentence adds signal and there is no filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, most of what an agent needs is present (target, calendar scoping, retry safety), but permission requirements, confirmation/reversibility semantics, and error behavior are all absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: event_uid is identified as the event's uid and calendar_name is explained with the non-obvious behavior 'omit to search all calendars'. That adds real meaning the bare schema lacks.

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 (delete) and resource (event) keyed by uid, so the core action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling calendar_delete_events (plural), which an agent could easily confuse with this single-event tool.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative such as calendar_delete_events. Usage is only implied by the verb itself, matching the calibration case that scored 2 for 'no when-to-use, no prerequisites'.

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