schedule_delete

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags the operation as destructive, so the description only needs to add context. "I documenti già creati restano" does add real value by disclosing that this is not a cascading delete and previously generated documents survive. However, it says nothing about irreversibility, confirmation needs, or authorization requirements beyond what the annotation conveys.

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 very short sentences, with the action front-loaded and the side-effect note second. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity borders on under-specification given what the tool actually needs to convey.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with an annotation covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the main side effect. It still omits what the id refers to, how failures surface, and whether deleted schedules can be recreated, which matters for a delete operation.

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% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the description must carry the burden and does not. It never says the id is a recurrence identifier (for example one obtained from schedule_list) or what format it takes, leaving an agent to guess at a required field.

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?

"Elimina una ricorrenza" gives a specific verb plus resource that separates it from schedule_create, schedule_update, and schedule_list. The scope of 'ricorrenza' is intelligible as the scheduled recurrence, though the description never uses the term 'schedule' that the tool name relies on, and an agent must infer that the deleted entity is the schedule itself, not a document.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not point at schedule_update as the alternative for pausing or editing a recurrence, nor does it state prerequisites such as whether the schedule must be idle or what error occurs for an unknown id.

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