Delete a calendar event by partial title. Specify date to improve search; choose to cancel only this event or the entire recurring series.
Cancela/exclui um evento do calendário. Chaves alinhadas ao backend FastAPI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data_busca | No | DD/MM/YYYY — data do evento (melhora a busca) | |
| apenas_este | No | True = só este evento; False = toda a série recorrente | |
| titulo_parcial | Yes | Parte do título do evento |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explicitly state the destructive/cancelling nature of the operation, but it does not mention irreversibility, permission requirements, or the recurrence consequence of apenas_este=false, which is only revealed in the schema.
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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence, 'Chaves alinhadas ao backend FastAPI,' is vague and does not help an agent select or invoke the tool, so not every sentence earns its place.
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?
The schema handles parameter documentation well, including recurrence behavior, and the core operation is clear. However, without annotations or an output schema, the description leaves gaps around expected results, error cases, and the destructive consequences of deleting an event.
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 all three parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra parameter semantics; the note about FastAPI-aligned keys is a naming convention rather than meaningful parameter guidance.
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 action ('Cancela/exclui') and a clear resource ('um evento do calendário'), making the deletion/cancellation purpose unmistakable. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like outlook_criar_evento, outlook_editar_evento, and outlook_detalhes_evento.
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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit comparisons to siblings such as outlook_editar_evento or outlook_criar_evento.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.