Delete calendar

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing the referential-integrity rule (refused and named when referenced, because the pool reference would dangle), the invariant that the last calendar of a pool survives, and the requirement to be inside an open unit of work. These are exactly the multi-step and rollback-relevant facts an agent needs before invoking 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the failure and invariant clauses in priority order. The clause 'that reference lives inside the pool and would point nowhere' is slightly convoluted but earns its place by justifying the refusal.

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, so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers refusal behavior, invariants and transaction scope. It omits permission/authorization requirements, but otherwise the destructive path is adequately framed.

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% and the schema itself states 'give exactly one of id, code and name', so the parameter contract is fully carried by structured data. The description adds nothing about the identifier options, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Deletes a calendar'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the create/update/list siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the delete semantic is not confusable with any sibling.

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 gives real preconditions — the call is refused when an idref_calendar references the calendar, and it must run 'inside an open unit of work' — which shapes when the call can succeed. However, it never contrasts with calendar_update or any sibling, and it does not explain how to resolve a refusal, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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