Remove scheduled events from Google Calendar by specifying calendar and event IDs to manage your schedule effectively.
Cancel (delete) a specific event from Google Calendar
Args: calendar_id: Calendar ID where the event exists event_id: The unique identifier of the event to cancel
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| calendar_id | Yes | ||
| event_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 states the tool cancels/deletes an event, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks critical details: whether it requires specific permissions, if the action is reversible, what happens to attendees, or if there are rate limits. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague phrasing. Minor deduction for not integrating parameter details more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient and well-organized.
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 complexity (destructive mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., effects, permissions) and output details. For a deletion tool, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate safely and effectively.
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%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It explicitly lists both parameters (calendar_id, event_id) with brief clarifications ('Calendar ID where the event exists', 'The unique identifier of the event to cancel'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it doesn't specify format (e.g., email-like for calendar_id) or examples, leaving some ambiguity.
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 the specific action ('Cancel (delete)') and resource ('a specific event from Google Calendar'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_meet_event (creation) and get_calendar_events (retrieval). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing event), exclusions (e.g., not for recurring events), or comparisons to other tools like delete_event if it existed. The description assumes context but doesn't provide explicit usage rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.