Forget a calendar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key side effects: deleting the local .ics copy, freeing a slot, and preserving both the user's own calendar and the source file. It does not mention irreversibility or error behavior, but the main behavioral traits are transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action and side effect in the first, the boundary of what is untouched in the second, and the relevant sibling behavior in the third. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it tells what is removed, what is deleted, what is preserved, and that names can be replaced via ics_import. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already fully describes the 'name' parameter as 'The calendar name from calendars_list', so the description adds little parametric meaning beyond clarifying that it identifies an imported calendar. This matches the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'Remove one imported calendar by name and delete this server's local copy of its .ics'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by specifying 'imported calendar' and noting that 'Your own calendar and the source file are untouched'.

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 provides clear context: it applies to imported calendars and frees a slot, while explicitly contrasting behavior with ics_import ('replaces a name in place'). It does not fully enumerate when-not-to-use or all sibling alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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