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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the description does not waste words on that; instead it adds genuinely new behavior context: an administrator key is required, and already-running executions are unaffected by the deletion. That scoping of side effects is exactly what an agent needs before an irreversible call, and it is consistent with the annotations.

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 short sentences, each load-bearing: the action, the authorization/scope caveats, then the safer alternative. The most important fact (permanence) is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, nothing needed is missing: permanence, auth requirement, blast radius, and the safer alternative are all covered. Return-value behavior is irrelevant here since a delete needs no output contract.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage (id, format sch_…, sourced from create_schedule/list_schedules), the schema already carries the parameter meaning in full. The description adds nothing further about the id, 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?

"Permanently delete a schedule" gives a specific verb, resource, and irreversibility qualifier. It cleanly separates this tool from sibling mutations like update_schedule, create_schedule, and run_schedule.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent away from this tool when the intent is temporary: "To stop it for a while, pause it with update_schedule instead." That names the alternative and the condition that selects it, so the highest-value when-not guidance is present.

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