Delete a Microsoft 365 or Outlook calendar event by its ID, using IDs from the event list, to remove meetings or appointments from the connected calendar.
Deletes an event from the connected Microsoft 365 / Outlook calendar by its id (from m365_list_events).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.352v3.0.341v3.0.330Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a destructive delete but says nothing about confirmation, irreversibility, permission/account requirements, or the fact that a specific connection is needed. More disclosure is expected for a destructive mutation with zero annotations.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and target and adds the id source. No filler.
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 delete-by-id tool the description covers the essentials, but with no annotations, no output schema, and many similar delete siblings, it omits permission requirements, connectivity preconditions, and disambiguation from other calendar delete tools.
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?
Parameter count is 0 so the baseline is 4. The description usefully clarifies that the event id originates from m365_list_events, providing provenance for the identifier even though the schema itself has no properties.
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 (deletes) and resource (event from Microsoft 365 / Outlook calendar) with the identifier source. Clear purpose, though it does not distinguish itself from the similar sibling delete_calendar_event or outlook_calendar_delete_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 implies usage by noting the id comes from m365_list_events, giving one contextual pointer. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives like outlook_calendar_delete_event.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.