calendar_delete_event

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, but the description adds valuable context by requiring human approval and specifying If-Match usage. This goes beyond the basic annotation hints, providing operational expectations.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loads the action and scope, and includes essential requirements without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the core operation, mandatory parameters, and the approval workflow. It doesn't mention return values or side effects beyond deletion, but for a destructive operation with human approval, these are secondary. The If-Match note adds important contextual detail.

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 description names three of the six parameters (requestId, scope, sendUpdates) and clarifies their roles. The remaining parameters (accountId, calendarId, eventId) are self-explanatory from name and context, but schema descriptions are absent, so the tool description only partially compensates for the 0% 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 clearly states the action (delete), the specific resource types (event, occurrence, series), and the scope. It also mentions the human approval requirement, distinguishing it from other calendar operations. Sibling tools confirm the unique purpose.

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 explicitly lists mandatory parameters (requestId, recurrence scope, sendUpdates) and mentions the If-Match requirement. While it doesn't explicitly compare with sibling tools for when to use deletion vs. update, the action and constraints are clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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