calendar.calendarList.delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavior burden and does well: it discloses irreversibility ("unless the API documents a trash/undo flow"), the --readonly safety-profile refusal, and the return shape (post-delete resource state or empty as JSON). The tail about how request bodies are constructed is generic template boilerplate rather than tool-specific insight.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and does the real work. The remainder is a long run-on chain of generic transport boilerplate (typed flags, params map, body_file) that could apply to any tool in this family and dilutes the destructive-action warning.

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 covers safety, irreversibility, and return format adequately. The main remaining gap is that it never clarifies the effect on the underlying calendar versus the list entry, which materially affects the decision to call it.

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%, so the schema already documents calendarId, params, query, dry_run, and body_file. The description restates the typed-params-win-over-params-map and body_file behavior already present in the schema, adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Removes a calendar from the user's calendar list") and enumerates the sibling operations over the same resource. It does not, however, disambiguate from calendar.calendars.delete (i.e., that this only unsubscribes rather than destroying the calendar), which is the one distinction an agent most needs here.

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 implies usage context (a destructive list operation) and notes it is refused under --readonly profiles, which is useful. But it gives no explicit routing guidance such as "use this to unsubscribe; use calendars.delete to destroy the calendar," so the agent must infer the alternative.

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