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 behavioral burden and does a fair job: it flags DESTRUCTIVE explicitly and explains idempotency ('deleting an already-absent id is a no-op'), which is the kind of trait an agent cannot infer from the schema. It omits auth/permission requirements and any side effects such as attendee notifications or whether recurrence masters are affected.

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?

Three tight sentences, zero filler, and the most consequential fact ('DESTRUCTIVE') is front-loaded. Every clause conveys distinct information: risk, operation, idempotency semantics, return shape.

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 one-parameter deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, that it is irreversible, that repeats are safe, and the return shape `{success, existed}` — which usefully compensates for the absent output schema. Only permission/prerequisite context is missing.

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% for the single `id` parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the phrase 'one event by id' — no format, range, or source for the id beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource with scope: 'Delete one event by id.' An agent can immediately tell this removes a calendar event rather than an entity or a file. It never names or contrasts against the closest siblings (calendar_events_update, calendar_events_list), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by 'DESTRUCTIVE' and the single-event scope, which is enough to know this is the removal path. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no guidance on choosing between this and calendar_entities_delete or calendar_events_update for corrections.

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