skylight_delete_source_calendar

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered structurally. The description does add real scope context by noting webcal subscriptions are included, but it omits whether synced events are cascade-deleted, whether the action is recoverable, and what authorization is needed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the action, the resource, and the notable inclusion of webcal subscriptions. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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, no-output-schema tool the definition is only partially sufficient: it names the target but leaves the two parameters unexplained and does not describe the side effects on existing events or synced data. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining gap is mainly scope and parameters.

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% for two parameters (id, frameId), and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all — it does not say whether id is the source calendar ID or whether frameId is required to disambiguate. With required 'id' and an entirely undescribed optional 'frameId', the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a connected source calendar') and clarifies scope by including webcal subscriptions, which distinguishes it from generic delete tools and from skylight_delete_event. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest siblings (list_source_calendars, create_source_calendar, categorize_source_calendar), but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no prerequisites stated (e.g. whether the calendar must first be disconnected or whether it must belong to a frame). The agent is left to infer that this is the tool for tearing down a source calendar rather than an event or category.

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