Delete an iCloud calendar. Calendars with events require delete_events=True to remove up to 500 events with it; undo can recreate both.
Delete an event calendar. One that still holds events is refused unless delete_events=True, which deletes the events with it (up to 500, so the deletion can be undone: undo recreates the calendar and its events).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| calendar | Yes | ||
| delete_events | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the refusal-on-non-empty rule, the cascading destructive behavior of delete_events, a 500-event limit, and — importantly — that the deletion is recoverable via undo. It omits permission/prerequisite requirements and whether an empty-calendar delete is likewise undoable.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the critical caveat and its consequences. The nested parenthetical about the 500 cap and undo is dense but each clause adds real information; nothing is filler.
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 destructive two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the failure mode, the destructive flag's effect, a scale limit, and recovery. Missing only the identifier format for 'calendar' and any auth/prerequisite context.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains delete_events thoroughly (what it enables, its cascade, the cap, reversibility), but the required 'calendar' parameter is left entirely undescribed — no hint whether it takes a name, ID, or path.
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+resource ('Delete an event calendar') that is unambiguous against siblings like delete_event, delete_list, and rename_calendar. The agent immediately knows this removes a whole calendar, not its contents or a list.
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?
Gives a precise precondition for using it: a non-empty calendar is refused unless delete_events=True, so the agent knows when the default call will fail. It does not, however, name alternatives (e.g., delete_event for clearing contents) or state when deleting a calendar at all is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.