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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotency, but the description adds the critical context annotations cannot convey: which dependent data (bookings, time blocks) is destroyed and that it is unrecoverable. That is exactly the 'what gets destroyed' disclosure that raises the bar beyond structured hints.

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 sentences, both load-bearing: the first delivers the destruction scope and irreversibility, the second delivers the safer alternative. No filler and the irreversible consequence is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists and none is needed for a delete. With annotations covering the safety profile and the description covering data loss and the alternative path, an agent has everything required to decide whether to call it.

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 both parameters are documented with sourcing hints (scheduler_id from get_schedulers, workspace_id from workspace://list). The description adds nothing about parameters, so the 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 and resource (delete the booking schedule) and immediately scopes the blast radius by naming the dependent entities removed with it (bookings and time blocks). An agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like get_schedulers or duplicate_scheduler without opening the schema.

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 names the when-not case and the alternative: if the goal is merely to stop accepting bookings, use save_scheduler (is_active) instead. This routes the agent away from an irreversible action when a reversible one suffices.

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