Delete a specific event from a Google Calendar using its calendar ID and event ID.
Delete a calendar event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eventId | Yes | Event ID to delete | |
| calendarId | Yes | Calendar ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the destructive and idempotent nature. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as irreversibility, notifications to attendees, or effects on recurring event series. Since it contributes nothing beyond the annotations, the behavioral transparency burden is not advanced by the description.
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 a single, direct sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation and front-loads the verb and resource, exemplifying efficient structure.
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?
The tool is low-complexity: both required parameters are documented in the schema, and annotations convey destructive and idempotent behavior. The description is minimally sufficient for calling the tool correctly, but it lacks any usage context, side-effect notes, or guidance on edge cases (e.g., recurring events), leaving gaps that prevent a higher score.
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 100%: both eventId and calendarId are individually described in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, so it appropriately relies on the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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 'Delete a calendar event' uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (calendar event), clearly conveying the operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling read/update/create tools by specifying a single-event deletion, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like calendar_events_update or calendar_events_insert.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus calendar_events_update or calendar_events_insert, nor any mention of prerequisites such as event ownership, recurring-event behavior, or how to obtain the eventId. The description simply states the action with no conditional or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.