nworks_calendar_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the required OAuth scopes (calendar + calendar.read) and the retrieval method for eventId. This complements the structured data without contradicting it.

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 three concise sentences, with each sentence serving a clear purpose: stating the action, providing a usage trigger, and detailing OAuth and eventId lookup. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has no unnecessary words, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 delete operation with three parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, usage trigger, authentication, and eventId acquisition. It does not describe the effect of sendNotification or error behavior, but given the simplicity and annotation coverage, the description is adequately complete for correct invocation.

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 all three parameters (userId, eventId, sendNotification) are already documented in the input schema. The description only reinforces the eventId lookup tip, which also appears in the schema, so it adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema provides. 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?

The description clearly states the tool deletes calendar events ('캘린더 일정을 삭제합니다') and provides a concrete usage example ('일정 취소해줘'). This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like nworks_calendar_create or nworks_calendar_update, which have different actions.

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?

The description gives clear when-to-use guidance by citing the trigger phrase '일정 취소해줘' and explicitly mentions that eventId can be obtained via nworks_calendar_list, which helps the agent call it correctly. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for rescheduling use update), but the context is sufficient for a simple delete operation.

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