delete_event

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses the irreversible nature ('There is no undo'), the span semantics for recurring events, and the rejection of read-only calendars. It also states the return value ('Returns the event as it was before deletion'), which is not in the annotations.

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 compact yet information-dense. It front-loads the core action, then layers in usage details for recurring events and constraints, with zero filler. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool with recurring-event complexity and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: how to identify the target, how to scope deletions, the irreversibility, a key rejection case, and the return value. No gaps are apparent.

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?

Although the schema covers all parameters with descriptions, the tool description adds crucial semantic context: how to obtain eventIdentifier, when occurrenceDate is required, and how span controls scope. It explains the interplay between parameters, which goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb ('Deletes an event') and the resource ('an event'), and explicitly ties the eventIdentifier to list_events, distinguishing it from update_event and create_event. It also covers recurring-event specifics, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to get eventIdentifier from list_events, explains the required parameters for recurring events (occurrenceDate and span), and states that span is mandatory for recurring events. It also warns that read-only calendars are rejected, which tells the agent when not to call it.

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