gcal_delete_event

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, but the description adds meaningful context by stating the deletion is permanent and irreversible, and by advising confirmation beforehand. It addresses what gets destroyed and the consequence, which goes slightly beyond the destructiveHint flag.

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 compact and well-structured, with the key warning front-loaded before the parameter list. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall length is appropriate and every section is immediately useful.

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 simple destructive delete operation, the description covers the action, irreversibility, prerequisite verification, parameter meanings, and return type. The schema handles the default and required details, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

The description repeats the parameter names and basic meanings already present in the input schema, but it adds little beyond that. It does not specify that calendar_id has a default of 'primary', nor does it clarify optionality versus requiredness beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Permanently delete a Google Calendar event,' a specific verb and resource that unambiguously states the action. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like gcal_create_event, gcal_update_event, and gcal_get_events.

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 warns that the action cannot be undone and explicitly instructs the agent to confirm the event ID with gcal_get_events before deleting. It does not enumerate explicit when-not-to-use cases or alternatives, but the irreversibility warning and prerequisite are strong usage guidance for a destructive tool.

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