Workbooks Delete Report Schedule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds a meaningful safety gate (confirm=True), which is useful beyond the annotations, but says nothing about irreversibility, whether the schedule disappears immediately, or what happens to the report. It also slightly conflicts with the schema, where confirm defaults to false and is not in the required list — the agent must infer that enforcement happens server-side.

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 short sentences, both load-bearing, with the action front-loaded and the safety gate second. Nothing is wasted, though the terse style borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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 destructive single-target mutation, the essentials are present: what is deleted and that a confirm flag is required, plus annotations covering safety and an output schema covering returns. What is missing is identifier provenance and post-deletion effects, which an agent would want before invoking an irreversible 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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the confirm flag's required value, which is real added meaning, but leaves report_id and schedule_id entirely undocumented — their format, source (e.g., from workbooks_list_report_schedules), and constraints are unstated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a report's scheduled export'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like workbooks_delete_workbook_schedule and workbooks_update_report_schedule. An agent can pick it without opening any 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?

The description gives the operational precondition ('Requires confirm=True') but never says when to choose this over workbooks_update_report_schedule or how it relates to workbooks_list_report_schedules. Usage is implied by the verb only.

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