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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by emphasizing no undo and no trash, and clarifies that past documents are unaffected. However, it does not elaborate on authentication requirements or rate limits, which could be relevant for a destructive operation. The description aligns with and enriches 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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: permanent deletion warning with recovery path, alternative to pausing, and effect on past documents with return value. Front-loaded with the core action and consequence.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter schema and the presence of destructiveHint annotation, the description fully covers all aspects: input provenance, safety warnings, alternative behavior, and return format. No gaps remain.

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 adds value by explaining that the schedule_id comes from `create_schedule` or `list_schedules`, which clarifies the parameter's provenance beyond the schema's 'UUID' description. This is helpful context, earning a 4.

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 clearly states the verb 'delete' and the resource 'recurring schedule', and explicitly distinguishes it from pausing (via the `enabled` flag) and from `create_schedule` for recovery. It differentiates from siblings like `list_schedules` and `create_schedule` by focusing solely on deletion.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (permanent deletion intent) and when not to use (if only pausing is needed, do not use this tool). Offers a concrete alternative action (PATCH /v1/schedules/{id} via `enabled` flag) and recommends user confirmation before calling on pre-existing schedules.

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