Delete multiple calendar events by UID in a single call. Optionally target a specific calendar; unknown UIDs are reported without error.
Delete many events by uid in one call.
Args: event_uids: Uids to delete; unknown uids are reported, not an error. calendar_name: Calendar to delete from; omit to search all calendars.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_uids | Yes | ||
| calendar_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the partial-success behavior (unknown uids are reported, not an error) and the default scope of calendar_name, but says nothing about the destructive/irreversible nature of deletion, permissions required, or the shape of the report.
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?
One summary sentence followed by a tight Args block; no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the parameter detail.
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 2-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameter behavior and partial-failure handling, but omits irreversibility/confirmation expectations and what the 'report' of unknown uids actually looks like.
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 does: it defines event_uids semantics (unknown ones are reported, not fatal) and calendar_name's default 'all calendars' behavior. Both parameters gain meaning beyond their bare names.
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'), resource ('events'), and scope ('many ... by uid in one call'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the singular calendar_delete_event sibling. It never names the alternative explicitly, so a 5 is not warranted, but the bulk-by-uid framing is unambiguous.
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 Args block gives real operating context — unknown uids are reported rather than erroring, and omitting calendar_name searches all calendars — which implies when the tool is appropriate. It offers no explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.