Permanently deletes a calendar event by its UID, as returned by calendar_list_events. Use when an event must be removed; the deletion cannot be undone.
Permanently delete an event by uid (from calendar_list_events). This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | ||
| calendar_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses the most important trait: deletion is permanent and cannot be undone. It does not mention permission requirements or other side effects, but the destructive irreversibility is clearly stated.
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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The core action and its irreversible nature are front-loaded, and the source of the uid is included compactly.
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 simple two-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and irreversibility adequately. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it should explain calendar_name and at least acknowledge permission or side-effect expectations.
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 for both parameters. It adds useful meaning for uid by noting it comes from calendar_list_events, but it says nothing about the optional calendar_name parameter, leaving half the parameters undocumented.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete an event') and identifies the required identifier source ('uid from calendar_list_events'). This clearly distinguishes deletion from sibling tools such as calendar_update_event and calendar_create_event.
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?
It provides clear usage context by naming calendar_list_events as the source of the uid, which tells the agent how to obtain the required input. It does not explicitly describe when not to use the tool or name alternatives for modifying events, so it falls short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.