calendar_delete_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions that deletion can be done via eventId (most reliable) or title search, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, error handling for missing events, or confirmation prompts. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by parameter usage guidance. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff. It's efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral consequences (e.g., permanence, permissions), error responses, or what happens upon successful deletion. While parameter coverage is adequate via the schema, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing that eventId is 'most reliable' and that date is 'optional when using title search', but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or edge cases. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('calendar event'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like calendar_update_event by specifying deletion rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools (though none exist in the sibling list), keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use different parameters (eventId vs. title with date filter), which helps guide usage. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives for deletion scenarios, but the parameter guidance is sufficient for basic decision-making. No misleading information is present.

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