delete_weekly_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is 'permanently' destructive and requires 'confirm: true' to proceed, which informs the agent of the irreversible and guarded nature. This is significant for a delete tool, though it does not detail side effects or what happens to associated data.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, followed by a necessary confirmation instruction. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 delete tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, the required confirmation, and the default scope (active brand). It could mention what the response looks like or any post-conditions, but given the simplicity and lack of complex return values, it is reasonably complete.

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 100%, with both brandId and confirm described in the input schema. The description does not add meaning beyond 'confirm: true' and 'active brand', which are already captured in the schema. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation fully.

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 tool 'permanently remove[s] the weekly schedule for the active brand', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like disable_weekly_schedule by emphasizing 'permanently', indicating a destructive operation. The mention of the confirm parameter further clarifies the required action.

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 provides an explicit usage instruction ('Pass confirm: true to proceed') and implies the tool is for permanent deletion of a weekly schedule. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like disable_weekly_schedule, nor does it state when-not-to-use. The usage context is implied but not fully elaborated.

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