calendar.entities.delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden — and it delivers. It discloses that the operation is destructive, permanent, cascade-deletes children, is not idempotent, throws on unknown ids, and returns a shaped response. This fully compensates for the lack of 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 and front-loaded, opening with 'DESTRUCTIVE' to immediately flag the risk. Every sentence earns its place: destruction scope, non-idempotency, return value, error behavior, and the safer alternative. No filler or repetition.

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 tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description explains the return object, error behavior, non-idempotency, and the alternative. It gives any agent everything necessary to call this tool safely and correctly, with no gaps requiring inference.

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 coverage is 100% — the single id parameter is fully described in the schema ('Entity id to delete'). The description does not need to add meaning to the parameter itself. Its mention of the return value and errors is behavioral, not parameter semantic, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('delete'), resource ('entity'), and scope ('cascade-delete every event and link attached to it'). It distinguishes itself from calendar.entities.update and calendar.events.delete by explicitly clarifying the destructive, cascading behavior and naming the safer alternative.

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 names when to use it versus the alternative: 'To deactivate without losing history, use calendar.entities.update with active: false instead.' It also warns that the operation is not idempotent and throws on unknown ids, giving clear behavioral criteria for choosing this tool.

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