Deletes a specified calendar event using its calendar ID and event ID. Use it to remove or cancel scheduled events from a Feishu calendar.
删除日程 (Delete event)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes | 日程 ID (Event ID) | |
| calendar_id | Yes | 日历 ID (Calendar ID) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing. For a destructive operation it never states whether deletion is permanent, whether attendees are notified, how recurring events are handled, or what permissions are required.
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?
It is very short with no wasted prose, but the length reflects under-specification rather than discipline, and the bilingual duplication of the same two words adds no information. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.
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 simple two-parameter tool with a complete schema and no output schema, the structured fields cover most needs, but the total absence of destructive-operation context (permanence, side effects) leaves an agent under-informed for an irreversible action.
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 100%, so both calendar_id and event_id are already documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning such as format, source, or constraints for either identifier.
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 is a direct restatement of the tool name: '删除日程 (Delete event)' for feishu_delete_event. It identifies the verb and resource only because the name already did, and it offers no differentiation from siblings such as feishu_delete_calendar or feishu_update_event.
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?
No when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative guidance is given. An agent gets no signal about when deletion is appropriate versus feishu_update_event, or whether the event must first be fetched via feishu_get_event.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.