delete_calendar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the hard guardrail (calendar must be empty, past and future events both count), the pointer to the tool that clears that blocker, and a scope exclusion. It does not state irreversibility, permission/auth requirements, or what the dryRun default is, which are meaningful gaps for an unannotated destructive 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what it deletes, then the blocker and its workaround, then the exclusion. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero required parameters, the description adequately covers scope, precondition, and alternative. It is slightly thin on the edge case of supplying neither or both identifiers, and does not describe the delete's result or permanence.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the mutual-exclusivity note on calendarId ('use instead of name'). The description reinforces that identifiers must be exact but adds nothing about dryRun (e.g., default value or that it is the safe-preview flag), so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Delete an iCloud event calendar') plus the two identifiers it accepts (exact name or calendarId). It also implicitly separates itself from delete_event (calendars, not events) and delete_reminder_list ('Will not delete Reminders lists'), so an agent can route without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('The calendar must have no events (past or future)') and names the remedial alternative tool ('delete them first with bulk_delete_events'). It also states an explicit when-not case by excluding Reminders lists, which is exactly the sibling an agent might otherwise confuse this with.

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