Delete a calendar event, notify attendees of cancellation, and know it cannot be undone. Provide the event ID to proceed.
Delete an event. Attendees are notified that it was cancelled, and it cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | This cannot be undone. Set true to proceed. | |
| eventId | Yes | ||
| calendarId | No | primary |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnly=false), the description adds two critical behavioral facts: attendees are notified of cancellation, and the operation is irreversible. This meaningfully supplements the structured metadata and prepares the agent for side effects.
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?
Two short sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the important side-effect warnings are included efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simple destructive operation, the description covers the key behavioral details, and the confirm parameter is documented in the schema. However, with low parameter coverage and no output schema, the description could have briefly clarified the role of eventId and calendarId. The tool remains callable but not fully self-contained.
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 only 33%: only 'confirm' has a description. The tool description does not compensate by explaining how to specify the event (eventId) or the calendar context (calendarId). While 'delete an event' implies an event identifier, the parameter semantics are largely left to the agent to infer.
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 states a specific action and resource: 'Delete an event.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like calendar_create_event and calendar_update_event, which have different verbs and purposes.
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?
Usage is implied: use this tool when an event should be deleted. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over calendar_update_event, nor any mention of conditions like event ownership or cancellation workflows. The context is clear but exclusions and alternatives are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.