deleteScheduleDelete a schedule. Owners may delete their own schedules; team superadmins may delete any schedule on agents in the current team.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | The agent's unique identifier | |
| schedule_id | Yes | The schedule's unique identifier |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the authorization model (owners vs. superadmins), which is valuable beyond what annotations convey. It is consistent with the annotations and does not contradict them.
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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loads the primary action, and adds only essential permission details. Every word earns its place with no fluff or 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?
For a simple destructive operation with two UUID parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the action, permission scope, and relies on annotations for safety. A minor omission is whether the deletion is permanent or any effects on dependent data, but destructiveHint already implies this.
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% for the two parameters (agent_id and schedule_id), each with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which aligns with the high schema coverage baseline.
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 states 'Delete a schedule' with a clear verb and resource, immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like createSchedule, updateSchedule, or listAgentSchedules. It also adds permission context that clarifies what the operation entails.
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 specifies who can use the tool: owners for their own schedules and team superadmins for any schedule on current team agents. This gives clear context for when it should be invoked, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like updateSchedule for modifications or listAgentSchedules for finding schedules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Despite detailed descriptions, many tool names are highly ambiguous, with multiple tools covering the same conceptual actions (e.g., acceptClarityCaptureSuggestion vs. acceptClarityTeamAssignmentSuggestion, or the many deleteClarity*Interview tools). The set is so large that distinguishing between, say, listClarityFolders, listClarityProcesses, and listClarityProcessSummaries requires reading deep into descriptions, reducing agent selection accuracy.
The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun (e.g., createClarityProcess, listAgents, deleteQueue), and is remarkably consistent across the 316 tools. There are only minor deviations, such as 'fileSuggestedClarityProcesses' (verb + adjective noun) and 'bulkUpdateCasePriority' (where 'bulk' could be seen as a prefix), but overall the pattern holds strongly.
With 316 tools, this server is extremely oversized for any single agent to manage effectively. The massive number of tools suggests poor modularization—many of these tools likely belong in separate, smaller servers focused on specific domains (e.g., Clarity, Pulse, Agent management). The cognitive load for an agent to choose from 316 options is very high, leading to frequent misselection.
The tool surface covers an extraordinarily wide range of operations across the Duvo platform: agents, runs, cases, queues, Clarity processes, skills, integrations, notifications, teams, and more. Most resource types have full CRUD and lifecycle management. Notable minor gaps exist (e.g., no tools for managing specific notification batch severities dynamically, and some interview management is missing batch operations), but for the platform's scope, coverage is impressively thorough.