Delete Calendar Event

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

Beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the required calendar.write scope, the required reviewed If-Match precondition, that there are no cancellation emails, and that the caller should reload after a conflict. This is meaningful operational context. It stops short of describing the response body or what happens on a 412 beyond 'reload'.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the confirmation requirement, then the prerequisites, then the side effects and error recovery. Every sentence carries a distinct constraint, with no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover destructiveness and idempotency, so the description only needs the operational prerequisites, operational caveats, and recovery path, which it supplies. It omits what happens to recurring-event instances and to attendee state, which would be relevant for a delete on an open-world calendar.

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 baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by calling the If-Match value 'reviewed', which signals that the ETag must come from a fresh read; it also ties conflicts to a reload, adding semantics to the precondition beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Delete an event'. The scope is limited to calendar events, distinguishing it implicitly from mailbox_delete_calendar and the update/create event siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the near-duplicate qubrics_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?

'Delete an event only when the user asks' gives an explicit usage condition and implies a when-not: never delete proactively. It does not name alternatives such as updating the event or using a batch tool, so the guidance is clear but not complete.

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