calendar_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses guest notifications, organizer-visible decline status, the series-versus-occurrence distinction, and the confirm=true requirement for this outward-facing/destructive action.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then uses compact bullets to cover the important side-effect cases and the confirm requirement. Every sentence provides decision-relevant information without repetition.

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 calendar tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the critical context an agent needs: side effects on guests, handling of received invitations, recurring-event granularity, and the mandatory confirmation requirement.

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 already 100%, so the schema documents all three parameters. The description adds useful meaning beyond the schema, especially that instance_start cancels only that occurrence while the series remains and guests are notified about the canceled occurrence.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete an event') and immediately clarifies recurring-event scope: whole series versus one occurrence. It also distinguishes its effect from calendar.respond by explaining that an invitation from someone else is only removed locally and recorded as declined.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use guidance: use this tool for deleting an organized event or removing an invitation, and use calendar.respond when the user wants to explicitly decline. It also explains the condition for using instance_start to cancel only one occurrence.

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