delete_calendar_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key trait: no notifications are sent, and it can delete events the user did not organize. However, it does not disclose reversibility, permission requirements, or behavior for series vs. single occurrences beyond what the schema already states.

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 sentences deliver the core purpose and usage guidance without redundancy or filler. The description is front-loaded with the action and key differentiator, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 description and schema cover the basics, but the presence of sibling tools like cancel_calendar_event and update_calendar_event creates ambiguity that is not resolved. The description mentions use cases but not the full decision space, leaving an agent to infer distinctions from tool names alone. No output schema reduces the need to explain returns, yet error conditions and side effects remain unaddressed.

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 schema covers all parameters with clear descriptions (eventId and scope with enum values and defaults), so the description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond what the schema already provides. Schema coverage is 100%, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 and uniquely specifies that it does so without sending notifications. It provides specific use cases ('remove events you did not organize, or to silently delete your own events') that add context beyond the name, though it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool cancel_calendar_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 gives direct instructions on when to use it ('Use this to remove events you did not organize, or to silently delete your own events'), implying a context where cancellation with notifications is not desired. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like cancel_calendar_event or state when not to use this tool, leaving the distinction implicit.

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