Delete an event

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

It discloses important non-obvious side effects: deleting an occurrence adds an exception date rather than physically removing it from the series, and CalDAV keeps no history, so deletion cannot be undone. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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?

Three tightly worded sentences: the core action, the occurrence-vs-series distinction, and the irreversibility warning. No filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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 the annotations (destructive, idempotent, non-read-only), full parameter descriptions, and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects and irreversibility. The confirmation flow for series deletion is not described here but is present in the schema, so the overall context is sufficient.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that an occurrence id removes just that occurrence while a series id removes the entire entry, which is not fully evident from the schema alone.

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 'Removes an event,' a specific verb and resource, and then distinguishes occurrence vs. series deletion, making its purpose unmistakable. It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like delete_task and delete_journal by targeting event semantics.

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 for deleting a single occurrence versus an entire series, including the iCalendar exception-date behavior for occurrences. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as respond_to_event or update_event for cancellation scenarios, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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