delete_calendar_event

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by flagging IRREVERSIBILITY at the dry_run=False boundary and mandating a confirmation gate — exactly the operational context annotations can't encode. It also implies the preview is produced before any mutation, which shapes agent behavior in a way the boolean hint does not.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the safety constraint; no filler. Minor redundancy: the dry_run mechanic is repeated from the schema's parameter description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the destructive nature is well covered by the irreversibility note plus confirmation protocol. A small gap: it doesn't point at list_calendar_events as the way to obtain a valid event_id, though the schema's parametrization makes this inferable.

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 dry_run description in the schema already explains the two-phase pattern, so the description mostly restates it. event_id receives no elaboration beyond the schema title. Baseline 3 is correct since structured data carries the semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('personal calendar entry') and adds an ownership scope ('this account owns') that rules out deleting other users' events. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, but the mutation intent is unambiguous against list_calendar_events / create_calendar_event.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step operating procedure: call with dry_run=True (default), show the preview, and only re-call with dry_run=False after explicit user confirmation. This tells the agent both when to call and under what condition to escalate to the destructive call.

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