feishu_delete_calendar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive, likely irreversible operation, but the description says nothing about permission requirements, reversibility, or whether deleting a calendar also removes its events — significant omissions for a destructive tool.

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 a single front-loaded phrase with zero waste, which is efficient. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but on pure conciseness and structure it performs well.

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 is too thin — it omits irreversibility, cascading effects on events, and required permissions. An agent has enough to call it mechanically but not 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents calendar_id fully. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (删除) and resource (飞书日历), which cleanly separates it from the event-oriented siblings like feishu_delete_event and feishu_get_calendar. However, it does not explicitly route the agent among the sibling calendar tools (e.g., update vs. delete), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as feishu_update_calendar or feishu_unsubscribe_calendar, nor any stated prerequisites (permissions, ownership). The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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