Delete an empty calendar

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description still adds real value by naming the required calendar.write scope, the ETag/If-Match guard, and the 409 failure mode for non-empty calendars. What is missing is whether deletion is recoverable or whether the ETag check can fail with 412 on stale values.

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, each carrying distinct information (permission, precondition workflow, failure mode) with no filler. The one weakness is ordering: it leads with the scope requirement rather than the action, so the tool's identity is only implicit in the body.

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 three-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers permissions, preconditions, and the main error case. Only secondary failure modes and post-deletion state are left unexplained.

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 each parameter is already documented, including that If-Match rejects wildcards and that mailbox_id may be omitted for single-mailbox credentials. The description only adds the procedural link between GET and If-Match, which is a marginal gain over the schema text.

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/title establish a specific verb+resource (delete calendar) and the description narrows the scope to empty calendars, which separates it from mailbox_delete_calendar_event. However, the description body itself never restates the operation, opening with an auth requirement instead, so the purpose is carried partly by the title rather than the prose.

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?

'Fetch the calendar and pass its ETag in If-Match' gives an explicit prerequisite workflow, and 'A calendar containing events returns 409 conflict' tells the agent the precondition that makes this tool unusable. It stops short of naming the alternative (delete_calendar_event to empty a calendar first), 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.