delete_calendar_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the event is 'permanently removed' and clarifies that recurring events 'may only delete one instance,' which are important destructive and edge-case behaviors. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but the core safety traits are covered.

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 well-structured, with a front-loaded purpose, helpful use-case bullets, a parameter note, and a behavioral warning. Every sentence serves a purpose and there is no filler or unnecessary 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 simple one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, how to provide the parameter, permanence, and recurring-event behavior. The only notable omission is the return/confirmation behavior, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 already documents eventId at 100% coverage, so the description's parameter section is somewhat redundant. However, it adds useful provenance by saying the ID comes 'from get_calendar_events,' helping the agent understand how to obtain a valid value. This goes slightly beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair: 'Delete a calendar event from Skylight.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_calendar_event, update_calendar_event, and get_calendar_events. The scope and action are 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 'Use this when:' section provides explicit, concrete contexts (canceling an event and deleting old events) with natural-language example phrases. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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