gws.cal.delete_event

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnly=false, idempotent=false) by adding important behavioral details: it 'removes the event for all attendees and cannot be undone,' which explains the scope and irreversibility. It also discloses the return value ('Returns the deleted event's ID and calendar'), which is absent from annotations. No contradictions with 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, starting with the primary action. Each sentence adds value: canceling, default calendar, irreversibility/safety, and return value. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, default behavior, irreversible impact, safety confirmation, and what gets returned. It sufficiently prepares an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with each parameter (account, eventId, calendarId) having a clear description. The description adds minimal new parameter semantics; it repeats the default primary calendar behavior already stated in the calendarId schema description. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Delete (cancel) a calendar event.' It also distinguishes from sibling tools like create_event, update_event, and get_event by emphasizing deletion and cancellation. The addition of 'Defaults to the primary calendar unless calendarId is given' further clarifies scope.

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 usage context, including the default calendar behavior and the requirement to confirm with the user before calling (a safety guideline). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-destructive modifications, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance. This fits 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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