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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description nonetheless adds substantive context: server-side validation of the ID against that domain's list before anything is deleted, IDs are not stable, running tasks (wp-cron posts/backups/newsletters) stop immediately, and the response explicitly reports whether the task actually disappeared or is unverified. That is genuine value beyond 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 action statement followed by prerequisites, irreversibility and response semantics; each sentence carries information. It is somewhat long and repeats the delete-then-create advice, and the aside about telling the customer the command/schedule/description is UX guidance rather than tool-selection content.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (fresh ID from get_cronjobs), domain-scoped validation, irreversibility, side effects on running jobs, and how the response distinguishes verified deletion from unverified state. Nothing essential to correct invocation 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%, so the baseline is 3, and the schema already warns against guessed or stale cronjob_ids. The description still adds meaning the schema lacks: the ID is validated server-side against the task list of this specific domain, and identifiers are not stable so a fresh fetch is required before deletion.

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 with scope: 'Löscht EINE geplante Aufgabe (Cronjob) einer Domain'. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling create_cronjob (re-creation path) and rules out in-place modification, so an agent can distinguish it from its siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('der Weg zurück zu create_cronjob, etwa für eine falsch angelegte Aufgabe') and when-not ('Ändern kann dieses Werkzeug nichts: dafür löschen und neu anlegen'). It also states the prerequisite that cronjob_id must originate from a fresh get_cronjobs call, naming the exact alternative tool.

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