Forget a calendar

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that both the calendar and its local .ics copy are removed and that nothing else is touched. This gives strong clarity on the destructive scope and side effects, though it omits failure modes or reversibility.

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 with the core action front-loaded and a clear no-side-effect clarification. Every word contributes to the meaning; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, one fully documented parameter, and no output schema requirement, the description covers the essential knowledge needed to use it safely: exactly what will be removed and what will not. Any missing details like not-found handling are negligible for a focused delete operation.

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 provides a full description for the only parameter (name: 'The calendar name from calendars_list'), so the tool description adds minimal parameter-level meaning. The phrase 'imported calendar' hints at the domain but does not add syntax, format, or constraints beyond the schema. Combined with 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action with verb and resource: 'Remove one imported calendar and the local copy of its .ics file.' 'Nothing else is touched' adds a precise scope boundary, distinguishing it from broader deletion operations and showing it is the inverse of ics_import.

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?

Usage context is implied by the term 'imported calendar' and the tool name ics_forget, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, named alternative, or exclusion such as 'use this instead of deleting the calendar.' The description tells what it does but not specifically when to choose it over other actions.

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