calendar_delete_event

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

Given no annotations, the description adds a warning about irreversibility and recurring series handling. However, it omits side effects, required permissions, or response behavior. The output schema exists but its content is not discussed.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and structured with a warning and argument list. Every sentence adds value.

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?

While the description covers the core operation and a key warning, it lacks context about when to use this tool versus siblings, error conditions, and how the output schema relates. For a delete tool with no annotations, more completeness would be beneficial.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful explanations: 'Target calendar name or URL path' for calendar_id and 'UID of the event to delete' for event_uid, which add clarity beyond the schema's titles.

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 clearly states the verb ('Delete'), resource ('calendar event'), and identifier ('by its UID'). It also clarifies behavior for recurring events. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like calendar_update_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?

The warning 'This operation cannot be undone' provides caution, and the note about recurring events is helpful. But no guidance on when to use delete versus update or how to delete a single instance of a recurring event.

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