delete_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the action is 'permanent and cannot be undone', returns a confirmation message, and returns an error for nonexistent IDs. It stops short of discussing permissions or cascading effects, but core destructive semantics are well covered.

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 concise with four sentences, each adding useful information: the action, recurring-event nuance, permanence, and verification advice. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool complexity (delete with recurring-event nuance) and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, error cases, and prerequisite verification. It does not detail the exact confirmation message structure but mentions it clearly. Minor omissions like idempotency behavior prevent a perfect score.

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 100%, with both event_id and apply_to already having descriptive text in the schema. The description adds little beyond restating the apply_to choice; it does not provide examples or clarify nuances beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 'Delete a calendar event from Outlook', specifying a clear verb, resource, and platform. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_event, create_event, and update_event, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context by explaining the apply_to parameter for recurring events and advising 'Use get_event to verify the event before deleting'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative deletion methods for other resources, which would deepen the guidance.

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