calendar_delete_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses that deletion is 'irreversible' and that 'double approval required', which are critical behavioral traits beyond the simple act of deleting. However, it doesn't elaborate on what the approval process entails or potential side effects like attendee notifications, leaving some gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose and critical warnings without any fluff or redundancy. Every word contributes value, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 2-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description captures the essential action and the two most important caveats (approval and irreversibility). It does not mention the calendar_id default or return values, but these are secondary to the core destructive behavior and the schema provides partial coverage.

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 description contains no parameter information, relying entirely on the schema. With only 50% schema coverage (event_id documented, calendar_id omitted), the description fails to compensate for the missing calendar_id semantics, such as its default value or purpose.

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 states 'Delete a calendar event' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like calendar_update_event and calendar_create_event. The parenthetical caveat about double approval and irreversibility adds context without confusing the core purpose.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like calendar_update_event or calendar_query_events. The warning about double approval and irreversibility implies caution but does not specify usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion scenarios.

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