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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint: true, and the description adds specificity: it mentions deletion of versions and run history and that it cannot be undone. This provides additional behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it does not cover auth or rate limits, which are not essential here.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action and scope, the second provides the alternative. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and annotations covering destructiveness, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, what it affects, and when to use the alternative. Nothing critical 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?

The schema covers the single parameter (schedule_id) with a clear description, and schema_description_coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is sufficient. Baseline 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Permanently delete'), resource ('schedule'), and scope ('all its versions and run history'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool unpublish_schedule, making the purpose 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?

Explicitly states when to use the alternative: 'To simply stop it firing without deleting, use unpublish_schedule.' This provides clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate versus not, and names the alternative directly.

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