shelly_schedule_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered structurally. The description adds two genuine pieces of context beyond that: the confirm gate and that the action is audit-logged. It does not state whether the deletion is permanent/irreversible or what errors result from a missing confirm, so it exceeds annotations only modestly.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the destructive action and its precondition come first. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the destructive hint plus confirm/audit notes cover the safety profile reasonably. However, the undocumented required 'device' parameter and the absence of any note on reversibility or confirm-missing behavior leave gaps for a destructive tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains 'id' (the target schedule) and the confirm flag's required value, but the required 'device' parameter is never mentioned in either the schema or the description, leaving a required input completely unexplained.

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 a schedule') plus the identifying key ('by id'), which cleanly separates it from the schedule_list/create/update siblings. It stops short of naming or contrasting any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 gives an invocation prerequisite ('Requires confirm:true'), which is useful guidance on how to call it safely. It does not say when to prefer this over shelly_schedule_update or other destructive siblings, nor what happens if confirm is omitted, so usage is only implied.

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