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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: deletion is permanent ('never fires again') but does not cascade to instances and jobs already started, which is exactly the non-obvious behavior an agent needs before calling it.

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?

Two short sentences, both earning their place, with the irreversible consequence front-loaded and the cascade caveat immediately after. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 simple destructive tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description supplies the one piece of missing behavioral context (no cascade to running jobs). Only minor gaps remain, such as error behavior on a nonexistent ID, which the idempotent annotation partly covers.

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% with clear per-field text (id, workspace default, environment default), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 schedule) and adds the operative consequence 'so it never fires again,' which distinguishes it from update_schedule or run_schedule_now. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of the 5 anchor, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the second sentence hints at the boundary between deleting a schedule and cancelling work it already started, which gestures toward cancel_job/cancel_job_group. There is no explicit 'use this when / use X instead when' routing, so the agent must infer the alternative.

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