Delete Calendar Event Attachment

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without any details about side effects, permanence, permissions, or error conditions. For a destructive operation like deletion, this is a notable gap.

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 two short sentences, with the primary English statement first and a redundant Chinese translation second. It is front-loaded, uses no filler, and each part serves a purpose (the Chinese aids multilingual intent recognition).

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 tool is a mutation with no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what happens after deletion, whether the action is reversible, or any prerequisites. Context such as the need to have an existing attachment ID or the impact on the event would improve completeness, but these are absent.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for both parameters ('Event ID.' and 'Attachment ID.'), yielding 100% coverage. However, these descriptions are tautological with the parameter names. The tool description itself adds no further meaning about where to find these IDs or how they relate, but since the schema covers them, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Delete an attachment from a calendar event.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like mail_delete_attachment and calendar_list_attachments. The Chinese intent phrase reinforces the purpose without adding ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that one first needs to obtain attachment IDs via calendar_list_attachments, or that deletion is permanent. There is no exclusion or alternative context, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.

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