calendar_delete_event

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds critical behavioral details: required human WebAuthn review and that organizer deletion sends attendee cancellations. This meaningfully increases transparency 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.

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

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then adding critical caveats. No fluff or redundancy.

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 core deletion behavior and side effects, but does not mention potential asynchronous execution (suggested by operation_* siblings) or return values. Given the lack of output schema, this is a notable gap but not fatal.

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 adds meaning to the `target` parameter by explaining single/series/occurrence modes, but it does not clarify `accountId`, `calendarId`, or `requestId`. Since schema coverage is low (only calendarId described), the description only partially compensates.

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 resource (calendar events), and distinguishes three specific deletion modes (single, series, occurrence). It aligns with the tool name and clearly separates it from update/create/RSVP siblings.

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 when to use the tool (for deletion) but does not explicitly compare against alternatives like calendar_update_event or calendar_rsvp. It gives a constraint ('only the explicitly reviewed') but lacks direct 'use this instead of...' guidance.

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