calendar.events.delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly labels the tool DESTRUCTIVE, states idempotency (deleting an already-absent id is a no-op), and describes the return value as `{success, existed}`. This discloses key behavioral aspects: permanence, safety on non-existent ids, and return shape. However, it omits permissions, reversibility, and any side effects on related data, which are relevant for a delete tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 exceptionally concise, with each sentence adding distinct value: it front-loads the destructive nature, then states the action, then idempotency, then the return shape. There is zero redundancy or filler, and the most important information appears first.

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 delete operation with one parameter, the description covers the essential context: what it does, destructive behavior, idempotency, and return value. It does not detail error handling (but idempotency implies no error for missing ids), permissions, or reversibility, though these are not critical for a basic delete. The description is nearly complete but could mention permanence explicitly, hence a 4 rather than a 5.

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 input schema fully documents the single parameter id with description 'Event id to delete,' and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format, validation, or examples. Since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline of 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 clearly states the verb (Delete), the resource (event), and the scope (one event by id). It distinguishes from siblings like calendar.events.update, list, and add, and even from calendar.entities.delete, by specifying event id. It is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions like 'use this to remove an event, but use calendar.events.update to modify it,' nor does it mention any restrictions or preconditions. There is no reference to alternatives or when not to use it, leaving usage context entirely to the agent's inference.

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