delete_schedule

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the action and return value, it omits critical details: whether the operation is reversible, if it affects associated entities, required permissions, or error conditions. These gaps are significant for a destructive operation.

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 short and includes sections for args and returns, but it is not as concise as possible. For example, it could combine the first sentence with the args explanation. However, it is not verbose and structure is clear.

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?

Given that this is a delete operation with 2 required parameters and an output schema, the description provides only minimal context. It does not explain what happens upon successful deletion (e.g., confirmation side-effects), failure scenarios, or any dependencies. The tool is simple but the description leaves important gaps.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description should add meaning beyond the schema's field titles. However, the description merely restates 'ID of the project' and 'ID of the schedule to delete', which adds no value over the schema's own property titles. It fails to clarify format, constraints, or relationships.

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 verb 'delete' and the resource 'schedule', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. Among sibling tools like create_schedule, get_schedule, update_schedule, and set_schedule_active, it is distinct and easily differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or consequences (e.g., whether the schedule must be inactive before deletion). The agent is left to guess the appropriate context for deletion.

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