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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical context: deletion also removes run history irreversibly, already-started missions continue, and the safer alternative preserves the task. It also discloses required scope and capability.

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?

Four short sentences are front-loaded with purpose and irreversible impact, followed by side effects, alternative behavior, and permissions. Every sentence adds necessary decision-making information without waste.

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?

Given the single-parameter schema, destructive annotations, and no output schema, the description provides everything needed: consequences, run history loss, in-progress mission behavior, the safer alternative, and required scopes.

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% for the single required parameter, so the schema already documents 'scheduledTaskId'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable but not value-adding here.

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 scheduled task, and clarifies the scope includes its run history. It also distinguishes itself from the non-destructive alternative of setting enabled to false.

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 describes the intended use and names the alternative for stopping new runs without deleting history. It also states the permission requirements, giving the agent clear preconditions before invoking.

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