delete_event

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which inform the agent this is destructive but idempotent. The description adds nothing beyond restating the action; it doesn't mention that deletion is permanent/irreversible, whether calendar_id affects which calendar the deletion applies to, or what happens to related events/recurring series.

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 a single efficient sentence with no waste. It's appropriately minimal, though a bit more behavioral context could be added without harming conciseness.

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?

This is a destructive mutable operation with no explanation of consequences, recovery options, or whether recurrence handling applies. The output schema exists but the description doesn't clarify what the response indicates. For a destructive operation annotated as such, more context is needed to help the agent use it responsibly.

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%, so the schema documents both parameters (event_id and calendar_id with a default of 'primary'). The description adds zero parameter information—it's a single generic sentence. With 100% coverage, baseline is 3, but the description contributes nothing and doesn't clarify edge cases like whether event_id is globally unique vs. scoped to calendar.

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 'Delete a calendar event' uses a clear verb+resource structure. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings beyond being the obvious delete counterpart; the purpose is clear but with no distinguishing scope or behavior detail beyond what the name already conveys.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. There's no mention of when deleting is appropriate, implications of deletion, or distinctions from update_event (modifying instead of removing). The tool name makes the general purpose obvious, but the description offers no context about consequences.

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