schedule_deleteDelete one schedule permanently. Invoices already generated stay in the invoice server and the history is kept. Re-creating it gives a NEW id, so its old periods count as unbilled. schedule_pause is reversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Schedule id, or a client name. Deletion is permanent; re-creating the same schedule afterwards gives it a NEW id, so its old periods count as unbilled again |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: invoices already generated remain in the invoice server, history is kept, re-creating the schedule yields a new id, and old periods count as unbilled. It also clarifies that pause is reversible, giving the agent a fuller picture of consequences.
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 short sentences, all informative and none wasted. The core action and permanence are front-loaded, and the sibling contrast is placed at the end without clutter.
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 destructive one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what happens to generated invoices, history, re-creation behavior, and the reversible alternative. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and understand the consequences.
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 the id parameter is already described as 'Schedule id, or a client name' plus the permanent re-creation consequence. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Delete one schedule permanently.' It also distinguishes itself from the reversible sibling operation by noting 'schedule_pause is reversible,' so an agent can tell delete apart from pause/resume/update without opening schemas.
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 implies when to use this tool by emphasizing permanence and contrasting with 'schedule_pause is reversible.' It gives clear context for choosing delete over pause, though it does not explicitly enumerate all alternative tools or state 'use schedule_pause if you need a reversible option.'
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.