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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the cascade: deleting the run-of-show item also removes it from the public website programme, plus a confirmation requirement. It stops short of stating irreversibility or the failure mode for an unknown id.

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 with zero waste: the action and its side effect come first, the safety instruction second. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title.

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 with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the definition covers the essentials plus the non-obvious website cascade. Minor omissions — behavior on a missing/invalid id and whether the delete is reversible — are the only gaps.

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 the single parameter is already documented as 'The item, from get-schedule', which tells the agent where to source the id. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Deletes') and a specific resource ('an item from the run of show'), and clarifies the downstream effect on the website programme. The resource name distinguishes it naturally from the sibling delete tools (delete-guest, delete-task, etc.), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 supplies one concrete workflow rule — 'Confirm with the user first' — which is actionable and non-obvious for an agent. However, it gives no guidance on choosing between delete-schedule-item and update-schedule-item for correcting an existing entry, and no preconditions (e.g. required permissions, what happens if the item is referenced elsewhere).

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