delete_calendar

Does 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 that the tool removes an annotation, which is a specific side effect, and explains the background. However, it does not state whether the operation is reversible, what happens if the annotation does not exist, or any permission requirements.

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 sentence with a parenthetical qualification, which is efficient and front-loads the primary action. The technical jargon about Wave R and TOM objects adds context but could be seen as slightly dense; still, no unnecessary content.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens on success or failure, whether the table must exist or already have a calendar definition, or any prerequisites. It also leaves the sessionId parameter unexplained, which is a significant gap.

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 only 50%: the table parameter has a description, but sessionId is undocumented. The description says 'a table's calendar definition' but does not add detail about how the table parameter is used or what sessionId represents. Thus it fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Delete' with a clear resource 'a table's calendar definition' and explains the exact mechanism (removes the PBI_Calendar annotation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_calendar or list_calendars, and the Wave R convention note adds meaningful context.

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 provides some context about when this tool is relevant (remember the Wave R convention while native TOM objects are absent), which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like update_calendar or create_date_table. No exclusions are given.

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