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 real value beyond that by clarifying this is a SOFT delete that sets active=false rather than removing the record, which refines the meaning of 'destructive' for the agent. It omits permissions, workspace scoping, and what happens to already-queued report runs.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with the mechanism in parentheses; no filler and nothing to trim.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core semantics (soft delete, idempotent) but leaves out reversibility, required scoping, and side effects on scheduled runs. Adequate as a minimum viable statement, but not complete.

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 only 40% across 5 parameters, and the description names none of them. It alludes to idempotency (mapping loosely to the required idempotency_key) but never explains the required id, brand_id, or the opaque query override object, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Soft-delete a report schedule'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the many other delete_* siblings by resource name. The parenthetical adds the exact mechanism. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings like update_report_schedule, but the purpose 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as aidelly_update_report_schedule (which could also set active=false) or aidelly_list_report_schedules. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated; usage is only implied by the verb.

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