delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the deletion is permanent/irreversible, it is reserved for data-entry errors, and it returns the resulting object in the unified format. Only a permissions/auth requirement is left unstated.

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?

Every sentence earns its place — write gating, return format, irreversibility, alternative routing, and the scope rule — and the most consequential constraint (explicit request only) is front-loaded. It is dense but not 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-parameter destructive mutation, the description covers usage gating, irreversibility, the alternative tool, and the one non-obvious parameter rule; an output schema exists so return values need no elaboration. What remains missing is only the authorization/permission context for permanent deletion.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden — and it does: it specifies that scope (this/series) is required for a recurring event, which is information the schema's nullable optional field does not convey. The id parameter is left implicit, which is a minor gap given its obviousness.

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 tool name is a bare generic verb, but the description supplies the operative meaning: 'Suppression définitive, réservée aux erreurs de saisie' and the recurring-event scope rule imply deletion of calendar records, and it explicitly contrasts itself with set_status(cancelled). The exact resource (event vs. task) is only implied via 'événement récurrent', so it stops short of a 5.

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 states when to call (only on explicit request from Denis), when not to call (never on own initiative, not to 'help', not to correct), and names the exact alternative for the adjacent case: set_status(cancelled). This is about as explicit as routing guidance gets.

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