calendar_delete_special

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the operation is destructive/outward-facing, requires confirm=true, and explains two non-obvious effects (weekly working-location setting is preserved; a multi-day Out of office is deleted in its entirety). It doesn't say whether the deletion is reversible or what happens if no matching entry exists.

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?

Four tight sentences, each earning its place: scope first, then sibling differentiation, then the per-entry-type behaviors, then the confirm requirement. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, side effects, and the mandatory confirmation flag. It leaves out return/error behavior (e.g., no entry found for that day) but otherwise gives an agent enough to call it safely.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic meaning about the `date` parameter: for working locations only that day is affected, whereas for a multi-day Out of office the date selects an entry that is removed as a whole. That nuance is absent from the schema and materially affects how an agent should pick a date.

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 verb (delete) and a precise resource scope (working location / Out of office / Focus time entries for one day in the Calendar app). It explicitly distinguishes itself from calendar_delete by noting those entries are not in the calendar provider and are therefore invisible to that tool.

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?

Names the closest alternative (calendar.delete) and explains the condition under which this tool must be used instead, which is exactly the routing information an agent needs. It stops short of stating explicit exclusions or preconditions beyond the confirm flag.

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