calendar_delete_event

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the human-approval requirement, which explains the _approvalId gate and signals a non-immediate, two-step workflow, plus the 'one occurrence' deletion scope.

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 plus a version/permission tag; the destructive action, its scope and the approval precondition are all front-loaded with zero filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema covers parameters. The description covers scope and the approval precondition, leaving only minor gaps such as whether deletion is reversible and how approval is obtained.

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 already documents id, _approvalId and _idempotencyKey fully. The description's 'one occurrence' phrasing hints that id targets an occurrence, but it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (event), and adds the important scope qualifier 'one occurrence', which tells the agent this removes a single instance rather than a recurring series. It does not explicitly contrast with other calendar tools, but the resource is 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 'Requires human approval' clause establishes a real precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings such as calendar_update_event or any guidance on handling the approval/idempotency flow. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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