ghl_calendar_delete

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds OAuth scopes 'calendars.write' and endpoint details, enhancing transparency. It does not contradict annotations.

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 very concise with three lines: title, action, and endpoint/scopes. Every sentence provides value without fluff, and the key information is front-loaded.

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-by-ID tool, the description is fairly complete. It includes endpoint, OAuth scopes, and clarifies the action. It does not mention possible cascading effects on related entities (e.g., events), but annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness.

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% (calendarId described as 'Calendar Id' with example). The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond implying the ID identifies the calendar, so baseline 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 clearly states 'Delete Calendar' and 'Delete calendar by ID', specifying the verb (delete) and resource (calendar). It distinguishes from siblings like ghl_calendar_get, ghl_calendar_list, etc., by focusing on deletion. The endpoint and OAuth scopes further clarify the action.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as ghl_calendar_event_delete for events or ghl_calendar_update for modifications. However, the name and context make it clear it's for deletion, providing implicit guidance.

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