Delete calendar event

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, indicating the tool is destructive. The description confirms the delete action and specifies the required identifier (object URL). However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as whether deletion is irreversible or if it triggers cascade effects like deleting notifications or recurring event instances. The annotation covers the core safety trait, so the bar is lower.

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 a single clear sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the essential action and input requirement, making it quick to parse.

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 tool with no output schema and a low parameter count, the description covers the core purpose and key parameter. However, the absence of explanation for etag and server leaves potential gaps, especially when considering concurrency or multi-account scenarios. The agent may not know how to handle the optional etag parameter, reducing completeness.

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 33% of parameters have schema descriptions (server), but the tool description mentions only objectUrl, ignoring etag and server. The description adds no explanation for etag (likely for concurrency control) or server (defaults to configured server). For a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate but fails to cover most parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete a calendar event') and the resource ('calendar event'), along with the required input method ('by its object URL'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like calendar_update_event or calendar_create_event, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from calendar_tentative_event or calendar_accept_event which are also event-modifying 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like calendar_update_event or calendar_accept_event. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as having the event's object URL or the need for write permissions. The agent receives no context about scenarios where deletion might be inappropriate.

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