Delete an event

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the confirmation handshake, the exact return of the first call, and the irreversibility. This is behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the destructive nature and then the confirmation protocol. No filler or repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the shape of the first response (CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED, what would be deleted, confirm_token), closing the gap for a destructive tool. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 coverage is 80%, so most params are self-documented; the description adds real value by explaining the provenance and required timing of confirm_token (returned by a prior CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED response, only after approval). It does not touch account/calendar/send_updates, which the schema already covers.

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 ('Permanently delete an event') and immediately flags the destructive scope. An agent can distinguish it from update_event, move_event, and the read-only siblings without opening the schema.

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 two-phase protocol: the first call yields CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED, the agent must surface it to the user, and only re-call with the token after explicit approval. This is exactly the when-and-how-when-not guidance an agent needs.

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