delete_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a removal but does not mention irreversibility, potential side effects, required permissions, or behavior when the job does not exist. As a destructive operation, this lack of disclosure is a significant gap.

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?

The description is extremely concise, with a clear action statement followed by brief parameter definitions. Every sentence provides essential information, with no filler or repetition. Structure is efficient and 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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema, so the description adequately explains the core function. However, it lacks information about return values, error handling, or idempotency, which would be helpful for a delete operation. The absence of annotations and output schema means the description is the only source of behavioral information, leaving some gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by defining each parameter: 'automation_id: The automation UUID' and 'job_id: The job to remove.' This adds meaningful context about the purpose and format of each parameter, though it could be more detailed about constraints or examples.

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 the action: 'Remove a single schedule job from an automation.' It uses a specific verb ('Remove') and identifies the resource (schedule job within an automation), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_automation which removes the whole automation.

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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention delete_automation or update_schedule, nor does it specify any prerequisites or scenarios where this tool would be preferred. No usage context is provided beyond the basic action.

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