apple_calendar_delete_calendar

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data rather than the description. The description does add genuinely new behavioral context beyond annotations: the deletion cascades to all events in the calendar. It says nothing about irreversibility or confirmation, so this is a modest add on top of the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the scope of destruction is stated first and the 'Destructive.' flag is front-loaded as a warning.

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 single-parameter delete tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient, but it omits how to identify the target calendar and whether the deletion is reversible, which matters for an irreversible cascade delete.

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 for the single 'calendar' parameter. The word 'uniquely named' hints that the parameter is a calendar name that must be unique, which is real added meaning, but it does not clarify whether a name or identifier is expected or how to obtain it.

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 gives a specific verb (Delete) and resource (a uniquely named writable calendar), and the phrase 'and all its events' makes clear this is not the single-event delete sibling apple_calendar_delete_event. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as apple_calendar_delete_event for removing individual events, nor any prerequisite like locating the calendar first via apple_calendar_list_calendars. The single word 'Destructive.' is a warning, not routing guidance.

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