delete_calendar_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. For a destructive operation it never states whether deletion is permanent, whether permissions or organizer rights are required, what happens to recurring instances or attendee notifications, or whether declining is the safer alternative. It only notes that a deletion status is returned, which is the minimum.

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 text is short and front-loads the action in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args/Returns/Example block. The example earns its place by revealing UID format, though the boilerplate section headers add little for a single-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in depth, and it doesn't need to. But for a destructive, one-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, the omission of irreversibility and permission behavior leaves a meaningful gap in what an agent needs before calling 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 0%, so the description must supply meaning; "UID of the event to delete" and the example value "abc123@aruba.it" do clarify that this is an iCalendar-style UID rather than a numeric ID. However, it never says where the agent obtains that UID (presumably list_calendar_events), leaving the parameter only partially grounded.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Delete a calendar event"), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like create_calendar_event, list_calendar_events, and decline_calendar_event. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the decline/tentative-response siblings, which is the main remaining differentiation gap.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling response tools (decline_calendar_event, tentative_calendar_event), which are the plausible alternatives for handling an unwanted event. No prerequisites, no mention of when not to use it.

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