calendar_event_remove

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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important scope restriction that only the caller's own events can be deleted (自分の予定) and that matching is exact rather than partial, but it never says whether the deletion is irreversible, whether a confirmation step exists, or how ambiguous/no match cases behave for a destructive operation.

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 opening sentence front-loads the action and the two alternative identification strategies, and the Args block is terse and scannable. Slight redundancy exists in restating the id-vs-title preference twice, but nothing is wasted overall.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers selection semantics but leaves notable gaps: no statement about the result of a delete, what an unmatched or multi-match input produces, or recovery from a mistaken deletion. The `title`-vs-schema discrepancy further reduces confidence.

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 0%, so the description must supply all parameter meaning, and it does explain `id` (surfaced in the `calendar_events` listing) and `date` (YYYY-MM-DD format, used to narrow with title). However, it documents a `title` parameter that is absent from the input schema, creating a mismatch that could lead an agent to send a rejected argument.

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 uses a specific verb (削除する) and resource (カレンダーの自分の予定), and scopes it to the caller's own events, which separates it from the read-oriented sibling `calendar_events` and from `calendar_event_add`. An agent can identify the operation without consulting the schema.

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?

It gives concrete selection guidance among the parameters: use `id` because it is most reliable (最も確実), fall back to `title` when no id exists, and combine `title` with `date` to narrow to a single event. It does not, however, state prerequisites such as which calendar is targeted or what happens when zero or multiple events match.

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