delete_calendar_event

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new context: the removal is permanent and recurring events may only lose a single instance — behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations alone. It doesn't cover error behavior for invalid/missing eventId.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then structured sections for usage and parameters. The Parameters block largely duplicates the schema, which is minor waste but the rest is tight and scannable.

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?

A one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema: the description supplies purpose, triggering scenarios, ID provenance, and the permanence/recurrence caveats. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the single param is fully documented, and the description's restatement of eventId adds only the sourcing hint ('from get_calendar_events'), which is useful for chaining but marginal. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Delete a calendar event from Skylight') and the scope is unambiguous against siblings like create_calendar_event and update_calendar_event. The usage bullets reinforce that this removes existing events rather than modifying 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?

Provides explicit 'use this when' scenarios with example utterances (canceling an appointment, deleting old meetings), which gives clear context. It does not name when to use update_calendar_event instead (e.g., to cancel one occurrence via modification), so an explicit exclusion/alternative is missing.

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