ghl_calendar_resource_delete

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds context by mentioning OAuth scopes (calendars/resources.write) and confirming the action is a deletion. It does not contradict annotations but adds only modest behavioral context beyond what annotations 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?

The description is verbose, including multiple sentences about deprecated version warnings, endpoint paths, and OAuth scopes that could be condensed or eliminated. The key action is buried after version notes, and the structure is not front-loaded, reducing clarity for quick comprehension.

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, the description covers version, deprecation, and authorization requirements. However, it lacks any mention of the response format or side effects (e.g., success codes, error conditions). With no output schema and a relatively simple tool, the missing return value information leaves completeness slightly below adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully describes the two parameters (id and resourceType). The description adds no further meaning or examples beyond the schema for these parameters, justifying a baseline score of 3.

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 explicitly states 'Delete Calendar Resource' and 'Delete calendar resource by ID (Services V1)'. The verb 'delete' and the resource 'calendar resource' are unambiguous, and the tool is clearly distinguished from sibling tools (e.g., create, get, list, update) by being the delete operation.

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 specifies the correct API version and warns against using a deprecated variant (v3), providing clear version guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghl_calendar_resource_update or ghl_calendar_resource_create, leaving usage context implied.

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