Cancel a GS cleaning robot's simple schedule entry using its plan UUID, date, and operation type. Removes the task so the robot no longer runs it on that day.
删除简易排班 / Delete simple schedule
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | ||
| month | Yes | ||
| robot_sn | Yes | ||
| plan_uuid | Yes | ||
| client_time | No | ||
| day_of_month | Yes | ||
| operation_type | Yes | ||
| client_time_zone | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a destructive mutation. It says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, what happens to related schedule instances, or the meaning of operation_type, leaving the agent blind to the operation's consequences.
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 text is short, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. It adds no information beyond the tool name, so nothing is front-loaded because nothing is stated.
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?
A destructive tool with 8 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema needs substantial context about scope, permissions, and parameter roles. The definition provides none of it, making it inadequate for correct invocation.
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 0% across 8 parameters, and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. Critical fields such as plan_uuid, operation_type, and the year/month/day_of_month triple are completely undocumented, so an agent cannot know what values are valid.
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 bilingual text names a specific verb and resource (delete a simple schedule), so the action is identifiable. However it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does nothing to distinguish it from the sibling delete_schedule, leaving the agent to guess which deletion endpoint applies.
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 prerequisites, and no mention of the nearby delete_schedule alternative. The only hint is the tool name itself, which is insufficient for choosing between the two delete operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.