deleteEvent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' clearly implies a destructive mutation, it does not state whether the operation is permanent, whether confirmation or special permissions are required, or what side effects occur (e.g., removal from attendee calendars). The description is too thin to adequately characterize the risk.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action and key parameter efficiently, though it sacrifices some essential detail for brevity.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, this description is insufficient. It does not cover the optional calendarId, authentication or permission expectations, undoing behavior, or any failure/response semantics. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly based on this definition alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does identify eventId as the core identifier, but it completely omits calendarId, which is a parameter in the schema with a default of 'primary'. The vague phrase 'Google Calendar' doesn't clarify how the calendar is selected, leaving an agent uncertain about the optional parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete'), a resource ('an event'), and a unique identifier ('event ID'), which clearly distinguishes this from siblings like createEvent, getEvents, and updateEvent. It unambiguously states the operation and object.

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 implies that the tool is used to delete an event, but provides no guidance on when this tool should be used over alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., authentication), and no exclusions. It does not mention that calendarId is optional or defaulted, nor when a deletion might fail.

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