Delete a calendar event

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond that. It discloses that the event is moved to Deleted Items, that attendees receive cancellations when the user organized, and that the invitee-only case removes it without notifying the organizer. It also explains series master behavior. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 three sentences, each carrying distinct and essential information: the primary action and its outcome, the attendee vs organizer behavior, and the series master handling. It is front-loaded with the core action and has zero filler, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the complexity of the delete operation (different behavior for organizer vs invitee, series handling), the description covers all critical decision points an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. There is no output schema, but a delete typically returns a standard success/failure, so no return format is necessary. The description is complete for safe and correct usage.

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?

The schema has a single 'id' parameter with full 100% coverage, and the description references the series master case, which gives additional meaning to that id: it may represent a series master and then all occurrences are deleted. While the description does not explicitly say 'if the id is a series master,' it implies it, adding value beyond the schema's minimal 'Event id to delete.' This warrants a 4 rather than the baseline 3.

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 clearly states the action: 'Deletes an event, moving it to Deleted Items.' It specifies the resource (calendar event) and the immediate effect. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling calendar_respond_event by explaining the attendee vs organizer scenario, which prevents an agent from confusing the two tools.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'use calendar_respond_event with decline for that.' It also covers the series master case, clarifying that deleting a series master deletes all occurrences. This gives clear usage boundaries and eliminates guesswork about which tool fits the situation.

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