delete_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says the operation deletes. It does not disclose that deletion is irreversible, whether attendees are notified, whether the event is moved to trash, or what permission level is required. For a destructive mutation tool this is a significant disclosure gap.

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 action and followed by the series qualifier, with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity leans toward under-specification rather than tight completeness.

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?

This is a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should explain consequences and return behavior. It omits what happens to recurring instances, whether the action is reversible, and what the caller gets back. The definition is not sufficient for an agent to delete safely.

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%, so the enum meanings for scope and the calendarId special values are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of scope: series merely restates that, adding no syntax, defaults, or edge-case detail. Baseline 3 applies when 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?

"Удалить событие" states a specific verb (delete) plus resource (event), which clearly separates it from the sibling tools list_events, create_event, update_event, and color_events. The added clause about series deletion narrows the scope further. It stops short of 5 only because it does not explicitly name or contrast the siblings.

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 only guidance is "Для серии — scope: series", which is really a parameter hint rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no statement about prerequisites, permissions, when deletion should be avoided, or why an agent would pick this over update_event. An agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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