Remove a booking calendar

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the Google calendar itself is untouched and only Luca's selection changes, which materially recalibrates how destructive the agent treats the call. It also discloses required scopes and the idempotency-key requirement for safe retries.

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?

Front-loads the most decision-relevant fact (the Google calendar is not deleted) before operational metadata. Slightly padded by infrastructure boilerplate (scope strings, 'data sensitivity: redacted'), but every block is scannable and earns its place.

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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description supplies the remaining essentials for a mutation tool: scopes, idempotency guidance, workspace targeting, and the true blast radius. Minor gap is the absence of an explicit pointer to the inverse calendars_select sibling.

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 75% and the schema already documents workspaceId, workspaceSlug, and idempotencyKey with essentially the same wording the description repeats. The body/calendarId parameter carries no added semantic detail in the description, so this is the baseline 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opening sentence states a specific action (stop using a calendar) and narrows the resource scope to conflict checks and the booking destination, which cleanly distinguishes it from the inverse sibling luca_bookings_calendars_select. An agent knows exactly what state change this performs without opening the 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?

The description gives clear context for when the operation applies (removing a calendar from conflict checks or as booking destination) plus operational prerequisites (bookings:write, luca:queue_ops scopes, idempotency key, workspace override). It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tools (e.g., calendars_select for the inverse action), so exclusions are left implicit.

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