calendar_remove_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states deletion occurs, without detailing permissions, reversibility, side effects (e.g., cascading deletions for recurring events), or confirmation steps. The mention of 'removing_all_recurring_events' hints at behavior for recurring events but is insufficient.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. While this avoids verbosity, it sacrifices completeness. Every sentence serves a purpose, but the overall economy leaves significant gaps.

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 has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks critical context. It does not explain return behavior, success/failure indications, or error conditions. The brief explanation of the recurring event parameter is a start, but the description is far from complete for effective tool usage.

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 compensate. It explains only one parameter ('removing_all_recurring_events') but does not clarify 'event_id' (the sole required parameter) or 'event_recurring_time'. The meaning of these parameters is left to the schema titles alone, which are minimal.

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 tool removes a calendar event ("删除日程"), using a specific verb and resource. Though brief, it effectively communicates the primary action and distinguishes from sibling tools like calendar_create_event or calendar_edit_event.

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, such as calendar_edit_event for modifying events. There are no exclusions or contextual hints about prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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