delete_event

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that deletion is permanent/irreversible or mention required permissions (auth). It only states the action and return message, which is insufficient for a destructive operation.

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 short and structured into Args and Returns sections, with no redundant text. It clearly conveys the needed information in a straightforward, scannable format.

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 deletion tool, the description covers the basics (action, parameters, return), but it lacks behavioral warnings like irreversibility or prerequisites. It also doesn't mention error handling, making it functional but not comprehensive for a destructive action.

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?

The description lists all parameters with brief explanations: user_google_email as the user's email, event_id as the event ID, and calendar_id with a default. Since the schema provides no parameter descriptions, this adds necessary meaning, even though the explanations are minimal.

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 opens with 'Deletes an existing event,' which clearly states the action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_event and modify_event by explicitly targeting deletion.

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?

The description does not explicitly compare with alternatives or specify when to use it; usage is implied from the verb 'Deletes' and the context of sibling tools. It lacks guidance on when not to use or prerequisites.

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