Delete AddEvent Event

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by emphasizing the permanence ('This cannot be undone'), detailing error handling for non-existent event IDs, and stating the return value. These are meaningful behavioral traits that are not fully captured by the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, providing valuable context for the agent.

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 concise and well-structured with sections for Args, Returns, Examples, and Error Handling. It front-loads the primary purpose and every sentence contributes useful information, avoiding redundancy or unnecessary length.

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 single-parameter delete tool, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter, return value, error handling, and usage examples. The annotations already provide safety and idempotency hints, and the description fills in the remaining behavioral details, making it complete for safe and correct invocation.

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 full coverage of the only parameter (event_id) with a clear description. The description's Args section repeats similar information without adding new semantic details. The example given in the description is more about usage guidance than parameter semantics, so it does not meaningfully enhance understanding of the parameter itself.

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 'Permanently deletes an event' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like addevent_delete_calendar and addevent_delete_rsvp by targeting events. The title and description align, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 provides a concrete example ('Delete the duplicate event we just created') and an explicit 'Don't use when' exclusion for hiding events, noting there is no archive/unpublish option. This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool and when to avoid it, though it does not name an alternative sibling tool.

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