Delete an Outlook calendar event by EntryID, moving it to Deleted Items so scheduled items can be removed from your calendar.
Deletes a calendar event from Outlook by EntryID (it goes to Deleted Items).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.416Does 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 important trait that the deletion is a soft delete into Deleted Items, which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about permissions, account selection, failure modes, or whether the item can be restored.
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 with the resource, key, and side effect packed in without waste.
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 calendar operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives only the Deleted Items side effect and the required key. It omits account targeting and error behavior, and the key it names is absent from the schema.
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 description says the event is identified 'by EntryID', but the input schema declares zero properties, so the agent has no way to supply that value. This is an actionable inconsistency that will cause a failed or unintended call rather than merely an omission.
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 (deletes an Outlook calendar event) and adds the lookup key (EntryID). It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling delete tools (m365_delete_event, delete_calendar_event) or say which account it targets, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 statement of when to use this versus delete_calendar_event or m365_delete_event, no prerequisites (connected account, EntryID source), and no guidance on confirmation before a destructive call. The only guidance-like content is the Deleted Items note, which is behavior, not usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.