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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true / idempotentHint=false annotations, the description discloses genuine behavioral context: the schedule stops firing immediately, vanishes from the list, the cluster is untouched, prior stop/start actions are not undone, and the effect is reversible via recreate. This blast-radius detail is exactly what annotations cannot convey, though return/output behavior is not described.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect, then consequences, then the safer alternative and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 delete with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, effect, blast radius, alternative, and ID source. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 all three parameters are self-documented. The description adds only a cross-reference for schedule_id ('from list_power_schedules'); cluster_id and cluster_name are left to the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a power schedule from a cluster') and immediately scopes it against siblings by naming create_power_schedule, update_power_schedule, and list_power_schedules. An agent can distinguish this from related power-schedule tools without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: to pause while keeping configuration, use update_power_schedule with enabled false; to obtain the schedule_id, use list_power_schedules. Both the when-not and the prerequisite source are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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