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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by stating the real-world consequence ('removes the stop from the technician's day') and the required auth scope (work_order_schedules:write), which are not in the structured fields.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the consequence and the scope requirement. No filler or redundancy.

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 annotations already carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers what is deleted, the identifier, the side effect, and the auth scope. Only routing/alternatives guidance is absent.

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 id parameter (uuid format) is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'by ID' and adds no format, validation, or lookup detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a work order schedule entry') and names the identifier used, so the agent knows exactly what is being removed. It does not explicitly contrast with the many sibling delete_* tools, but the resource name is unambiguous among them.

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?

No when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives (e.g. update_work_order_schedule for modifying rather than removing). The only conditional context is the required write scope, which is a prerequisite, not usage guidance.

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