delete_event

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: the event is moved to the calendar trashbin and can be restored within the retention period. It does not explain the idempotent behavior hinted by idempotentHint, such as what happens when the same UID is deleted twice, but the annotations already partially cover this and there is no contradiction.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important fact, followed by a useful trash/restore caveat and clearly separated Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds necessary information without fluff.

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 two-parameter tool, the description is complete: it states what the action does, what happens to the event, how to find parameters, and what to expect in response. The presence of an output schema covers return details, so nothing critical is missing.

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 fully carries the parameter documentation burden. It defines both parameters, gives a concrete calendar_id example ("personal"), and explains how to obtain event_uid via get_events, which compensates well for the empty schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Delete a calendar event by its UID." It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like create_event, update_event, and get_event, and further clarifies that deletion moves the event to a trashbin rather than making it disappear instantly.

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?

It provides clear workflow guidance by saying "Use get_events to find UIDs," which tells the agent how to obtain required input. It also mentions restoration via the Nextcloud web interface, implicitly signaling when the tool is not appropriate for recovery. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives such as update_event for modifying an event without deleting it.

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