calendar_entities_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses irreversibility ('Permanently delete'), non-idempotency ('deleting an unknown id throws'), the cascade side effect on events and links, and the response payload. These are exactly the traits an agent needs to reason about before a destructive call.

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 with zero waste; the destructive warning is front-loaded and capitalized so it cannot be skimmed past. Each subsequent sentence adds a distinct fact (cascade, idempotency, return shape, alternative) rather than repeating itself.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description still specifies the return shape ({success, deleted_events, deleted_links}), which closes that gap. For a single-parameter destructive tool with no annotations, the only unaddressed area is authorization or permission requirements, a minor omission against otherwise thorough coverage.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ('Entity id to delete.'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces which id is targeted and notes that unknown ids throw, adding a small amount of meaning beyond the schema, but does not specify id format or where ids come from.

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 ('Permanently delete an entity') and immediately scopes it with cascade semantics ('AND cascade-delete every event and link attached to it'). This clearly distinguishes it from calendar_events_delete and calendar_entities_update, which an agent can tell apart without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('To deactivate without losing history, use `calendar_entities_update` with `active: false` instead') and the condition under which that alternative should be chosen. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both present with no inference required.

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