calendar_event_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds non-obvious context by stating 'CalDAV, soft delete' and 'Requires alias credentials', which informs the agent about the deletion mechanism and authentication requirements. However, it does not explain the implications of soft delete (e.g., recoverability) or the response format.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, scope, protocol, and authentication requirement without unnecessary words. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 delete operation, the description provides the core necessary information: what it does, scope, protocol, soft-delete behavior, and auth requirements. While it could mention return values or the consequences of soft delete, the absence is not a major gap given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tool descriptions for context.

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%, with all three parameters (alias_username, alias_password, event_id) already described in the schema. The description does not add significant semantic detail beyond the schema, and the mention of 'alias credentials' aligns with the schema fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 'Delete a calendar event for an alias', using a specific verb and resource. It also specifies the scope ('for an alias') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calendar_event_update and calendar_event_create by indicating the delete operation.

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 provides a prerequisite ('Requires alias credentials') and implies the tool is used for deleting calendar events. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or specify when not to use it. The context is clear but exclusions and alternative selection guidance are missing.

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