Delete a schedule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description still earns credit by disclosing two non-obvious behaviors the annotations cannot express: the confirm-gated preview mode and the warning that there is no server-side dry run, meaning the only preview is client-side. It stops short of saying whether deletion cascades to associated deliveries or is recoverable.

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 compact sentences: identity and endpoint first, then the gating condition. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling a destructive operation, and nothing is padded or redundant.

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-resource destructive mutation with no output schema and only three parameters, the definition covers the essential decision points: what is deleted, how it is executed, and that no server-side simulation exists. The remaining gap is downstream impact — what happens to scheduled deliveries or reports tied to a deleted schedule — which the annotations' destructiveHint gestures at but does not specify.

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 coverage is 67%, with 'id' self-explanatory and 'confirm' plus 'idempotencyKey' documented in the schema. The description's confirm sentence largely restates the schema text verbatim rather than adding new semantics, and idempotencyKey is not mentioned at all, so this sits at the expected baseline for a partially covered schema.

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 ('Delete') plus the resource ('a schedule') and even pins the underlying endpoint (DELETE /v1/report-schedules/{id}). The verb alone separates it from the sibling reportSchedules_list, reportSchedules_create, and reportSchedules_update tools, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 context is limited to the mechanics of the confirm flag ('not executed unless confirm: true'), which tells the agent how to invoke but not when this tool is the right choice versus reportSchedules_update or reportTemplates_delete. There are no explicit when-not or alternative-routing statements, so guidance is only implied by the tool name.

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