Delete an empty calendar

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

Beyond the destructive/idempotent annotations, it discloses the required calendar.write scope and the explicit 409 outcome when the calendar is non-empty, which is genuine behavioral context an agent needs before calling. It still doesn't say whether the deletion is permanent or recoverable, keeping it from a 5.

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 terse sentences with the permission requirement front-loaded, then the precondition, then the failure mode. No filler, and each sentence carries 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?

The output schema covers return values and annotations cover destructiveness, so the essentials are present. However, for a destructive mutation the description omits reversibility and any recovery guidance, and gives no routing for non-empty calendars.

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 100%, so the schema already documents calendar_id, mailbox_id, and If-Match. The description only reiterates the ETag workflow, adding no format, sourcing, or scoping detail beyond what the field descriptions provide. Baseline 3 applies.

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 name and title establish 'delete a calendar', and the description narrows the scope to an empty calendar with a concrete constraint (409 if events exist). It does not explicitly say 'deletes the calendar' in the description body or distinguish itself from mailbox_delete_calendar_event, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives a required workflow (GET the calendar first, pass its ETag) and a failure condition, which implies when the call is valid. It never states the alternative path for a calendar that contains events (e.g., delete its events first via mailbox_delete_calendar_event), leaving that inference to the agent.

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