delete_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the destructive nature plus a genuine side effect: rules referencing the schedule lose their time window. That cascade detail is valuable behavioral context, though irreversibility, permission requirements, and error behavior remain unstated.

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 no waste; the core action is front-loaded and the destructive consequence follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter delete with no output schema, the description covers the action and the key downstream effect on referencing rules. It is nearly complete, missing only confirmation/reversibility semantics and any auth expectations.

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 already document their own discovery tools (list_profiles, list_schedules), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or format beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline case.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Delete a schedule from a profile'), which is unambiguous and easily separated from siblings like list_schedules or create_schedule by verb alone. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or scope limits, so it is clear but not maximally 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?

Usage is only implied by the verb: an agent infers this is for removing schedules, but there is no stated when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. delete_rule, list_schedules) to route between. The consequence sentence hints at care but is not guidance on selection.

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