Delete calendar event

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds important context beyond them: 'Permanently delete' emphasizes irreversibility, 'entire recurring series' expands the blast radius, and the expected_etag note explains concurrency behavior. No contradiction with annotations; the description makes the destructive semantics vivid and accurate.

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 sentences carry all essential information with no filler: the action first, then scope, then targeting alternatives, then expected_etag usage. Every clause earns its place, and the most important constraints are front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the essential behavior, the full targeting mechanism, a concurrency safety mechanism, and a key unsupported edge case. An output schema is present, so return-value details need not be described, and the tool is simple enough that nothing critical is missing.

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 each parameter already has a detailed description, including the 'provide it together/alone' relationship between uid, calendar_id, and resource_id. The description essentially paraphrases the same targeting and etag guidance without adding substantial new meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with the specific verb 'delete' and resource 'event or entire recurring series', clearly distinguishing this destructive operation from create/update siblings. It explicitly calls out a key behavioral nuance (expanded occurrences not supported) that makes the tool's scope 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?

It gives concrete targeting instructions: use resource_id, or calendar_id with uid, and optionally expected_etag to guard against concurrent changes. It also states the exclusion for individual expanded occurrences, but it doesn't explicitly compare against alternatives like update_event when modification is desired. This is clear context with minor missing explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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