delete_recurring_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: 'soft-delete' signals the record is not permanently destroyed, and 'DRAFT' states an eligibility restriction that would otherwise be invisible. It still omits what happens to the schedule's status/records and what errors occur for non-draft schedules, so it is good but not complete.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core action and its scope are front-loaded and the confirmation requirement follows immediately.

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 single-parameter deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is deleted, that it is soft, and that it is restricted to DRAFT with user confirmation. It could still note the sibling alternative (pause) and post-delete state, which is why it is not a 5.

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% for the single 'id' parameter and even mirrors the description's DRAFT-only constraint. The description adds no syntax, ID-format, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('Soft-delete a ... recurring invoice schedule') plus a qualifying scope ('DRAFT'). The verb 'soft-delete' is precise and distinct from a hard delete, but the description never differentiates this from close siblings such as pause_recurring_schedule, resume_recurring_schedule, or activate_recurring_schedule, which an agent must choose between.

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?

It gives one explicit operational rule, 'Confirm with the user first,' and an eligibility condition (DRAFT only). However, it offers no comparison against the alternative actions in the sibling set (pause vs. delete vs. deactivate), so the agent gets an implied context rather than real when/when-not guidance.

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