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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things the annotations cannot express: an ownership/authorization constraint and the two-step confirmation flow. It stops short of saying what is irrecoverably lost (report settings vs. delivery history) or whether the delete is reversible.

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?

Roughly twenty words, front-loaded with the action and every sentence carrying distinct information. The telegraphic fragments ('Two steps. Owner only.') are efficient but slightly clipped, leaving the reader to infer that 'two steps' refers to the confirm-token dance.

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, owner-restricted mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the authorization gate, the confirmation protocol, and the safer alternative. Missing is any statement of what the confirmation call returns or what exactly is destroyed, which for a destructiveHint=true tool would be the last useful addition.

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 67% and the undocumented parameter, confirm_token, already carries a detailed in-schema description of the two-call protocol. The description's 'Two steps' gesture reinforces that flow but adds no syntax, format, or meaning for project_id or report_id beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('one scheduled report'), scoped to a single item, and explicitly distinguishes itself from dosai_update_report (pause) and points at dosai_list_report_settings for discovery. An agent can pick this apart from the many sibling delete_* tools without reading 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?

Gives the when-not ('To pause instead, dosai_update_report with enabled=false') with a concrete argument, plus the prerequisite ('Owner only') and the procedural shape ('Two steps'). This is explicit routing to an alternative rather than implied usage.

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