delete_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing beyond the verb. It does not state that the operation is destructive and irreversible, what permissions are required, whether deleting cascades to related plan/semester data, or that six identifiers must match before deletion succeeds.

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 words cannot be called wasteful, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded scope, constraint, or consequence information for a tool whose actual behavior must be inferred.

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?

With 8 parameters at 0% coverage, 6 required, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition leaves an agent with essentially nothing to work from. A destructive multi-identifier operation needs at least identifier semantics, mutation consequences, and a note on the sibling delete_simple_schedule.

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% across 8 parameters (robot_sn, plan_uuid, semester_uuid, operation_type, plan_commit_no, plan_start_date, client_time_zone, semester_commit_no) and the description adds no meaning to any of them. For example, the integer operation_type has no enum and no explanation, and the optional commit numbers are 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?

The description names a verb and resource ('Delete schedule') and the Chinese '标准排班' (standard schedule) hints that it targets standard schedules rather than the simple-schedule variant. However, it never names the sibling delete_simple_schedule or explain the distinction, so an agent must infer the boundary. This is minimum-viable identification, not clear sibling differentiation.

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 guidance, no preconditions, and no routing to alternatives such as delete_simple_schedule or update_schedule. It is somewhat distinguishable from siblings by name alone, but nothing in the description states when this tool is the right choice.

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