delete_calendar_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'automatic scan fallback', which is vague and unexplained. It does not state whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like cascading deletions, which is critical for a destructive action.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise and avoids redundancy. However, the phrase 'with automatic scan fallback' is vague and could be clearer or omitted, slightly diminishing the efficiency of the text.

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 destructive operation with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is under-specified. It omits essential context such as the meaning and implications of the automatic fallback, any return value expectations, and whether confirmation or permissions are required. The description does not fully equip an agent to handle edge cases.

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 compensate. It mentions 'event_id' but does not clarify the role of 'calendar_name' (optional, default 'primary') or what 'automatic scan fallback' means for parameter usage. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema itself.

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') and the resource ('calendar event'), with the method 'by its ID'. It distinctly separates this tool from siblings like get_upcoming_calendar_events and add_calendar_event. The phrase 'automatic scan fallback' is odd but does not obscure the core purpose.

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 usage when deletion is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as first fetching events to obtain an ID. There is no exclusions or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context.

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