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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the critical scope of destruction ('removes only the cron schedule; the saved workflow definition is kept'), the error condition if no such task exists, and the exact success payload. This is behavior an agent cannot infer from 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and selector, then scoped pitfalls and return format. Efficient overall, though the middle sentence is slightly convoluted with nested parentheticals that could be tightened.

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 destructive single-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, preservation semantics, recovery paths, and error/return behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the expected 'wf:{email}:{workflow-name}' format and warns against the bare workflow name. The description adds complementary meaning by explaining that for workflow schedules the value is what schedule_task returned as task_name, tying the parameter to its producer.

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 (cron job) by its name'), and immediately clarifies the key selector semantics. An agent can distinguish this from the other delete_* siblings and from schedule_task.

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 what happens in each case (workflow schedule vs 'ds:' dataset schedule), what is preserved, and how to resume each ('re-saving it via schedule_task', 're-save via save_user_dataset'), even naming delete_user_data_feed as the tool that removes the dataset itself. Strong when/when-not and alternative routing.

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