google_calendar_deletePermanently delete a secondary Google Calendar by calendar ID, optionally selecting the account nickname in multi-account setups. Use it to remove calendars you no longer need.
Delete a secondary calendar permanently (destructive).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| calendarId | Yes | Calendar ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.60Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait that the deletion is permanent and destructive. However, it omits whether contained events are also destroyed, whether this is reversible, and any permission/auth requirements, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.
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 short sentence with the destructive nature parenthesized at the end; nothing is wasted and the purpose is 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?
For a simple two-parameter delete with a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose and the destructive/permanent trait. But with no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about consequences (e.g. collateral deletion of events) and would-be-restricted behavior to be fully complete.
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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents calendarId and account. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a secondary calendar") and adds the scoping qualifier "secondary," which separates it from primary-calendar operations. It also implicitly distinguishes from the sibling google_calendar_delete_event by naming a calendar rather than an event, though it never makes that distinction explicit.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or how to react if the calendarId refers to a primary calendar. The only usage signal is the word "secondary," which constrains scope but is not framed as guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.