deleteEventDeletes a calendar event by eventId and calendarId from listEvents; for recurring events, removes the whole series.
Delete a calendar event by eventId + calendarId (from listEvents). For a recurring event the whole series is deleted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eventId | Yes | Event ID (from listEvents) | |
| calendarId | Yes | Calendar ID of the event (from listEvents) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.19.2Input schema / properties / calendarId / descriptionPrevious value: -"The calendar ID containing the event (from listEvents results)"New value: +"Calendar ID of the event (from listEvents)"Input schema / properties / eventId / descriptionPrevious value: -"The event ID (from listEvents results)"New value: +"Event ID (from listEvents)"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a recurring event deletes the entire series, not just one occurrence. It stops short of saying whether the deletion is permanent or lands in trash, and whether it fails on unknown IDs.
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 short sentences, the identifier requirement front-loaded, and the recurring-event caveat second. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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 two-required-param destructive operation with 100% schema coverage and destructive/idempotent annotations, this is close to complete. The remaining gap is reversibility and failure behavior for an invalid or already-deleted event, which matters for a destructive call.
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 coverage is 100% and both properties already carry '(from listEvents)', so the description mostly repeats the schema. The series-deletion sentence slightly enriches eventId semantics (a master ID implies series removal), but that is marginal beyond what the schema provides.
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 (delete) and resource (calendar event), plus the two identifiers required. This is unambiguously distinct from the sibling deletes (deleteTask, deleteContact, deleteFilter, deleteMessages), which target different resources.
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 parenthetical '(from listEvents)' tells the agent the prerequisite discovery step for both IDs, which is real routing guidance. It does not say when NOT to use it, nor how to delete only one instance of a recurring event, which would be the natural alternative case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.