delete_recurrence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that spawned instances survive as normal tasks (i.e., no cascade delete), which is real behavioral value, but it says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or whether the recurrence can be restored.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the important side effect immediately after it. Nothing is padded or restated.

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 single-parameter delete with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential scope question (what is and is not removed). It stops short of the destructive-op caveats (permanence, permission requirements) that an agent would ideally have.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ('The recurrence ID to delete'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format, ID-source, or type nuance beyond it, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 recurring task template'), and 'template' plus the follow-up clause distinguishes it from delete_task (which removes instances). It never names a sibling outright, so it falls just short of the 5 bar, but an agent can tell it apart from delete_automation and delete_task.

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 alternatives such as update_recurrence (which might disable rather than remove the template). The only usable hint is implicit in the consequence sentence, which is about effect rather than selection.

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