delete_calendar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action ('Delete') but provides no additional context about permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to associated events, rate limits, or error conditions. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what 'Delete' entails (permanent removal? moves to trash?), what permissions are needed, whether it affects associated events, or what the response looks like. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but behavioral and output context remain largely uncovered.

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 description doesn't mention parameters at all, but the input schema has 100% description coverage with a clear 'calendar_id' parameter documented. Since the schema fully describes the single required parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Delete') and target resource ('a calendar from Outlook'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_contact' or 'delete_event' by specifying the calendar resource type. However, it doesn't specify whether this deletes a single calendar or has additional scope limitations, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing calendar), warn about irreversible deletion, suggest alternatives like 'update_calendar' for modifications, or reference sibling tools like 'get_all_calendars' for selection. The agent must infer usage context entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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