Delete Event (calendar remove)

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant context: reversible (archives), preserves food/people/asset links, returns prior row for compatibility, idempotent replays, and includes cost/API-key requirements. This goes well beyond annotations and covers important behavioral traits.

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 dense sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, then required params, return values, preservation, restore, idempotency, and cost are each mentioned in order. Every clause 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?

For a reversible delete tool with an output schema, the description covers what is returned (prior row, changed, restore_id, life_state_rebuilt), what is preserved (links), idempotency, restore path, and cost/authentication. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already describes event_id and request_id as required, with idempotency_key as an alias. The description reiterates these but adds the 'replays' behavior tied to request_id, which is a slight extra. Since the schema carries the parameter meaning, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('archives') and resource ('one owned event'), and clarifies it is reversible. It distinguishes from siblings like archive_event and restore_event by framing it as a reversible delete that preserves links. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates from similar 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?

It explicitly points to restore_event for reversal and notes idempotency ('Replays perform no additional action'), which guides retry behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with archive_event or other delete tools, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this over a plain archive. The restore guidance is clear, so a 4 is appropriate.

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