Deletes a Google Calendar event by event ID, optionally from a specified calendar (defaults to primary). Use it to remove an event; deleting a shared event may notify attendees.
Delete one Google Calendar event. Deleting a shared event may notify attendees.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes | ||
| calendar_id | No | Calendar ID; defaults to primary |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real side effect: deleting a shared event may notify attendees. However, it omits irreversibility/recoverability, required scopes, and whether recurring instances or the whole series is removed — significant gaps for a destructive operation.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the side-effect caveat follows immediately. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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?
Minimally adequate for a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema: the agent knows what it deletes and one side effect. It still lacks irreversibility, permission requirements, and recurring-event scope, which an agent needs before invoking a delete.
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 description adds no meaning for either parameter; event_id has no schema description at all, and calendar_id's default behavior is documented only in the schema. At 50% coverage the description should compensate but does not.
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 ('Delete one Google Calendar event') with an explicit cardinality scope ('one'). The verb cleanly separates it from get_event, create_event, update_event, list_events, and respond_to_event without needing to name them.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus update_event or respond_to_event, no prerequisites (permissions, ownership, calendar_id resolution), and no exclusions such as recurring-event handling. The agent must infer all selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.