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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond them by disclosing the precise blast radius: deleting an automation-owned schedule stops it for the owner immediately, while other subscribers retain it via the automation's revisions. That is exactly the consequence context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 carrying distinct information: the action, the authorization rule, and the side effect. The core action is front-loaded, and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, permissions, and downstream effects on both the owner and other subscribers. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide whether to call it 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 description coverage is 100% and both required UUID parameters (agent_id, schedule_id) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format or validation detail beyond what is already structured, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 immediately scopes it by ownership. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like updateSchedule, createSchedule, and listAgentSchedules without opening a 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?

The description gives explicit authorization preconditions: owners may delete their own schedules, team superadmins may delete any schedule on agents in the current team. It doesn't name an alternative action (e.g., updateSchedule to pause or modify instead), so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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