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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=true/readOnlyHint=false; the description goes far beyond by disclosing server-side ID validation against the domain's task list, rejection of guessed/stale IDs before any deletion, non-stable IDs, irreversibility, and the real-world consequence (wp-cron stops scheduled posts, backups, newsletters). It even describes the response contract, including honest reporting of 'ungeprüft' when the list cannot be re-read.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose, alternative, prerequisite, and warnings arrive in a logical order. Every sentence carries operational information, though the non-stable-ID/fresh-fetch warning is stated more than once, adding minor 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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by describing the return behavior (explicit confirmation the task is gone, or 'ungeprüft' on failure). For a destructive, irreversible operation with two required params, nothing essential 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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces and extends the schema by explaining that cronjob_id is validated server-side against the task list of exactly this domain, and that the agent should announce the task's command/schedule/description to the customer rather than only the number.

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 ('Löscht EINE geplante Aufgabe (Cronjob) einer Domain') and immediately names the sibling it pairs with (create_cronjob). An agent can distinguish it from create_cronjob and get_cronjobs 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?

Explicitly frames the use case (recovering from a wrongly created task), states the alternative path for modification (delete + recreate via create_cronjob), and gives a hard prerequisite: fetch get_cronjobs freshly before deleting. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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