Delete appointment / calendar event

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

Annotations already flag destructive and readOnly, but the description adds that the operation 'cannot be undone' and explicitly warns it covers blocked time slots. This reinforces the irreversible behavior and broadens the tool's scope beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 dense sentences front-load the action and resource, then immediately address scope and the safer alternative. No 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 one-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover the necessary selection criteria, safety profile, and parameter meaning. The alternative route is included, so an agent has everything to decide correctly.

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 already covers the single parameter at 100%, and the description adds no new syntax or format details beyond restating that it uses an id and accepts blocked-slot ids, which the schema description already mentions. 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 verb ('Delete'), resource ('calendar event'), and key scope ('Works for both appointments and blocked time slots'). It clearly distinguishes itself from ghl_update_appointment via the alternative path, making it unmistakable from 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?

Explicitly provides a when-not-to-use: 'to keep the record but mark it off, use ghl_update_appointment with appointmentStatus "cancelled" instead.' Also clarifies its applicability to both appointments and blocked time slots, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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