remove_selected_calendar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It says 'Remove a calendar from conflict detection,' which implies a non-destructive disassociation rather than data deletion. However, it doesn't disclose whether the calendar connection remains or if this reverses what add_selected_calendar does, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word is meaningful and directly conveys the action and scope.

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 that there is an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the core function but lacks contextual details like whether this affects the calendar's connection status or what happens if the calendar isn't currently selected. For a simple removal tool, it is sufficient but not rich.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., external_id as 'Calendar email or ID'). It doesn't explain how integration and credential_id relate to the removal process.

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 'Remove a calendar from conflict detection' which specifies the verb (remove), resource (calendar), and context (conflict detection). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like add_selected_calendar and get_calendar_busy_times, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 implied usage: use this when you need to stop conflict detection for a specific calendar. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (like simply disconnecting the calendar) or what prerequisites might exist (e.g., that the calendar must first be selected via add_selected_calendar).

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