Delete Event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the deletion behavior and the key choice for recurring events (occurrence vs. series). However, it omits other relevant behavioral traits such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or potential side effects on related items, which leaves some transparency gaps.

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: two sentences that front-load the core action and then add the most important variation (recurring events). Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the main purpose and the recurring-event distinction, but it doesn't explain how to specify the target (which identifier is required), whether any parameter is mandatory, or what happens upon deletion. This leaves the description incomplete for a tool with such a parameter set.

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 25% (only occurrenceDate is described). The description does not clarify the roles of eventIdentifier and calendarItemIdentifier, nor how they relate to the 'identifier' mentioned in the text. It only vaguely hints at the scope parameter, leaving most parameters semantically under-specified.

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'), the resource ('calendar target'), and the precision ('exactly one', 'by identifier'). It also distinguishes the tool from its siblings (create, update, list, get) and adds specific nuance for recurring events, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (to delete a calendar target) and addresses the recurring-event scenario by explaining the choice between occurrence and series. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the sibling context and the clear deletion purpose provide enough practical guidance.

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