delete_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Deletes an event' without mentioning that deletion is irreversible, requiring any permissions, or detailing side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 very short and to the point, using a single sentence plus an args block. It avoids unnecessary detail, though the typo 'calender' is a minor flaw. No word is wasted.

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?

Given that this is a simple one-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the core action. However, it lacks any mention of behavioral traits like irreversibility, error behavior, or return values, which are important for a delete tool, so it is not fully complete.

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 schema has no descriptions for the event_id parameter, so the description's 'Args: event_id: Event identifier' adds some semantic value by clarifying the parameter's role. However, this is minimal and largely redundant with the parameter name and the tool's purpose, so the description does not substantially compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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' and the resource 'an event from the calender', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes itself from the sibling tools list_events, create_event, and update_event, which represent different CRUD operations.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is self-evident from the verb and the sibling tool names, which implies that this tool is for removing events. The description does not provide any exclusions or additional context.

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