Delete a calendar event by its UID. For repeating events, this removes the entire series; the action is logged and can be undone.
Delete an event by uid. For a repeating event this deletes the whole series. The deletion is logged and can be undone with the undo tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | ||
| calendar | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the whole-series deletion for repeating events, that the deletion is logged, and that it is reversible via the undo tool. It does not cover permission/auth requirements, but the destructive scope and reversibility are well conveyed.
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 tight sentences with the destructive scope front-loaded and no filler; every sentence adds actionable information.
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?
Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the series/undo behavior is covered. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and an undocumented calendar parameter, the definition leaves key context gaps.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that uid identifies the event but adds no format or qualifier details, and the calendar parameter is entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
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) and resource (event), plus the uid-based scope. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling deleters like delete_calendar or delete_reminder.
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 mention of the undo tool implies reversibility and the series note clarifies the outcome for repeating events, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus alternatives such as update_event for adjustments or deleting a single occurrence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.