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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value by disclosing that associated runs are also deleted (a cascade), but it stops short of saying whether that is permanent or reversible.

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?

A single short sentence with the destructive scope front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for a destructive operation, but it is not padded.

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?

With annotations carrying the destructive flag and full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials. It omits cascade consequences detail and any note about effect on already-executed runs, which matters for a delete tool.

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% — instance_id and schedule_id are documented with their source tools, and passport_token is explained. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Delete a repeating wake-up') and even notes the cascade ('and its runs'). It does not, however, differentiate from nearby siblings such as wakeup_cancel, reminder_delete, or schedule_update, so an agent still has to infer which deletion tool applies.

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?

There is no guidance on when to delete versus disable/update (schedule_update) or use an alternative wakeup/reminder deletion tool. No prerequisites (ownership, instance scoping) or warnings about irreversibility are stated.

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