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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context by clarifying this is a soft delete — the task is removed from the schedule but remains readable in history. The gaps are that it doesn't say what happens if the task is already archived (idempotentHint=false suggests a second call may fail) or what the call returns.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the permanent consequence, followed by the usage trigger. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter mutation with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what is removed, that it's permanent for scheduling purposes, and that history remains accessible. Only minor details (return value, behavior on repeat calls) are absent, and no output schema exists to cover them.

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%, and both parameters already document their provenance (task_id from list_agent_tasks, agent_id from list_agents). The description adds nothing about parameter format or validation, which is acceptable given the schema carries the load — baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Remove a scheduled task from the agent's schedule") and clarifies the archive semantics ("never runs again and stays readable in the history"), which implicitly separates it from a hard delete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby siblings stop_agent_task, update_agent_task, or schedule_agent_task, so the agent still has to infer which scheduling operation 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?

Gives a concrete trigger: "Use this when the owner asks to delete or cancel a task." That is clear context for invocation. However, it names no exclusions or alternatives, and lumping "cancel" in here is slightly ambiguous given stop_agent_task exists for pausing a task.

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