delete_calendar_list

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

Annotations already mark the tool destructive/not read-only. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: what exactly gets destroyed (sidebar entry) and what is preserved (the calendar itself). It also discloses the underlying endpoint and mutation shape, giving agents a clearer picture of the side effect.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the core intent, the endpoint/mutation format, and the destructive scope. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simple one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key requirements: what to send, how to send it, and what side effect to expect. It lacks explicit return-value or error-behavior info, but that is less critical given the absence of an output schema and the tool's low structural complexity.

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 only says mutation_json is a required string with no description, so the description must carry the semantic burden. It does: it explains mutation_json is a JSON object and lists the intended fields (provider, accountId, calendarId). It could more precisely state that mutation_json should be a stringified JSON object, but it still provides substantial guidance beyond the schema.

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: "Unsubscribe/remove a calendar from the calendar list." It clearly distinguishes the operation from deleting the underlying calendar by adding "not the calendar itself," which separates it from sibling calendar-destruction 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 implies the tool is for removing a calendar from the user's sidebar/list rather than deleting the calendar itself. However, it does not explicitly name or point to sibling alternatives like insert_calendar_list or update_calendars, so the when-to-use guidance is only implicit.

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