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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations by disclosing irreversibility, the pending-status precondition, the side-effect boundary ('does not touch the pin'), and the exact error codes (not_found, bad_request, insufficient_scope). This is rich behavioral context an agent cannot get from annotations alone.

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?

Front-loads the core action and irreversibility warning, then usage routing, then return/error contract. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({"deleted": true, "schedule_id": ...}) and the failure modes, so an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100% including a description pointing at list_schedules/create_schedule as sources for the UUID, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds only indirect semantics via the not_found error on unknown ids, so baseline 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+resource ('Delete a finished schedule record') and immediately narrows scope to non-terminal-status records. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like cancel_schedule and delete_pin, which it explicitly references or implicitly excludes.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('clean up history') and when not to ('A pending schedule cannot be deleted: use cancel_schedule first'), naming the alternative tool by name. Nothing is left to inference.

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