WACrew

agenda_apagar

Deletes a specified Google Calendar event using agenda and event IDs. Google sends cancellation emails to guests if the event has attendees.

Instructions

Apaga um evento do Google Agenda. Só apague o que o operador pediu explicitamente. Se o evento tiver convidados, o Google avisa o cancelamento por e-mail.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "agenda": "<agenda>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "agenda_apagar"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	id do evento (vem do agenda_ver)
`agenda`	Yes	id da agenda (vem do agenda_ver)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers a genuinely important side effect: guests receive an email cancellation notice from Google. It also adds a consent guardrail. What it omits is that deletion is permanent and not undoable, which matters 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the safety constraint, then the side effect. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive operation without annotations or an output schema, the description covers purpose, consent precondition, and guest notification. It would be complete at 5 if it stated irreversibility and what the tool returns on success.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters already state their origin ('vem do agenda_ver'). The description adds no further meaning about id or agenda, which is fine given the schema does the work, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource in its first sentence: deleting an event from Google Calendar. It is clearly distinct from agenda_ver (view) and agenda_editar (edit) by domain, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Só apague o que o operador pediu explicitamente' sets a clear consent constraint on when the tool should be invoked, functioning as a when-not rule. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g., use agenda_editar to change an event instead of deleting it), so it falls just below the top band.

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