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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description usefully clarifies the exact scope of destruction: the schedule is removed but the rig itself is untouched. It also discloses the authentication prerequisite, adding meaningful behavioral context for a delete operation.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds the most important caveats in minimal words.

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 single-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the essential context: what is deleted, where the ID comes from, what is not affected, and the authentication requirement. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema already documents schedule_id as a UUID, and the description adds valuable semantics by specifying that the ID comes from schedule_list and must belong to one of the caller's own rig schedules. This helps the agent source and validate the parameter correctly.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Delete one of your rig schedules') applied to a specific resource, and even notes the rig itself is untouched. This makes its purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from schedule_create, schedule_list, and schedule_pause.

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 gives clear context: use it to delete an existing schedule identified via schedule_list, and it requires a logged-in identity. It does not explicitly contrast with schedule_pause as a non-destructive alternative, but the operation's intent is clear enough for selection.

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