outlook_delete_event

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

Goes beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing the downstream side effect: cancellation plus attendee notifications when the caller is the organizer. It does not state whether the deletion is irreversible, whether it requires organizer/owner permissions, or what happens for non-organizers, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the parenthetical adds the non-obvious side effect rather than restating the name.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations already flagging destructiveness and no output schema, the description covers the essentials plus the attendee-notification consequence. Only irreversibility and required permissions are left unstated.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. 'By ID' identifies the parameter's role but adds nothing about format, origin, or whether it's the Graph event ID versus an iCalUID.

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) plus resource (calendar event) and the keying mechanism (by ID). Easily distinguished from siblings like outlook_update_event or outlook_list_events without consulting their schemas.

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?

Usage is implied by the delete verb and the ID argument, but no explicit guidance on when to use this versus outlook_update_event (to modify) or how to obtain a valid event_id (e.g., from outlook_list_events / outlook_find_event_by_key). No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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