delete_event

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 mentions 'due fasi', which hints at a two-step process, but fails to explain what these phases entail, whether deletion is reversible, or if any confirmation is needed. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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, consisting of a single sentence with a parenthetical. It is front-loaded with the main action decipher, earning a high score, but the extra phrase 'due fasi' is ambiguous and could have been elaborated, so a slight deduction.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the two-phase behavior, provide return value information, or offer any parameter guidance. Sibling tools like delete_message are likely similar, but without more context, the tool is under-specified.

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%, and the description provides no parameter details. The schema itself only gives names (event_id, request_id) without descriptions, leaving the agent guessing about their semantics. The description mentions 'due fasi' but does not tie it to request_id, which could be crucial for the second phase.

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 'Elimina un evento di calendario (due fasi)' clearly states the verb 'elimina' (delete) and the resource 'evento di calendario' (calendar event), and adds a unique trait 'due fasi' (two phases) that distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_message and delete_folder. It is clear, though short.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, such as clarifying that it is for calendar events only, not mail or foldersaca. The sibling tools imply differentiation, but the description does not explain.

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