Delete Calendar Event

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotency, but the description adds substantive behavior: the calendar.write scope requirement, the need for a reviewed If-Match, the absence of cancellation emails, and the reload-on-conflict recovery step. Those are real operational facts an agent would not get from the annotations alone.

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, all front-loaded and free of filler. Each sentence carries distinct information (permission, precondition, side effect, conflict handling), though the conflict clause is clipped enough to require interpretation.

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 single-resource mutation with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers authorization, precondition freshness, side-effect absence, and failure recovery. The only gap is guidance on cancellation workflows that would otherwise be the alternative to deletion.

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%, so the schema already explains event_id, If-Match (ETag, no wildcards) and mailbox_id. The description's mention of a 'reviewed If-Match value' adds a light procedural nuance but no new parameter-level meaning; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an event') and constrains it to user-initiated deletions. The distinct resource separates it from create/update calendar event siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'only when the user asks' gives one gating condition for use, which is useful for a destructive operation. It never contrasts with alternatives such as updating or declining/cancelling, and gives no guidance on recurring events or when deletion should be refused.

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