delete_event

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With destructiveHint=true already declaring the mutation, the description adds the most important missing detail: the blast radius, i.e. that "series" removes every occurrence while "instance" removes only one. What it does not disclose is irreversibility/undo, or what happens when `scope` is omitted on a recurring event — a real ambiguity since scope is not in the required list.

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 with zero filler; the destructive action is stated first and the conditional scope rule follows immediately. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers the recurring-event case but leaves gaps: what `id` refers to, whether deletion is permanent, and the default behavior when `scope` is omitted for a recurring event (the schema does not mark it required, creating a contradiction with "for recurring events pass scope").

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 50%: `scope` is fully documented in the schema and the description largely restates it (instance = one occurrence, series = all), which is mildly helpful but not additive. The `id` parameter has no schema description and is never mentioned in the description, so the agent must infer what identifier is expected (event ID vs. calendar+event pair).

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Delete an event"), which cleanly separates it from the create_event/update_event siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the destructive verb makes the intent unambiguous.

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?

It gives one conditional usage rule — pass `scope` for recurring events — but that is parameter guidance rather than when-to-use-this-tool guidance. There is no statement about when deletion is appropriate versus updating, nor any preconditions such as required permissions or ownership.

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