Delete a recurring task schedule by its UUID. Existing task instances remain unaffected.
Delete a recurring task schedule. Existing task instances are not affected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recurring_schedule_id | Yes | UUID of the recurring schedule to delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that with the blast-radius statement that existing task instances are unaffected, though it says nothing about permissions, error behavior on repeat deletes, or reversibility.
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, purpose first and the important scope caveat second, with no filler or restatement of the tool name.
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 one-parameter destructive delete with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers purpose and consequence scoping. It could still note that the action is irreversible/permanent, given idempotentHint=false, but nothing essential is missing.
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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented there as a UUID. The description adds no format, lookup, or sourcing guidance for recurring_schedule_id, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Delete') and resource ('recurring task schedule'), which cleanly separates it from update_recurring_schedule, list_recurring_schedules, and trigger_recurring_now. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls just short of the top band.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives: to stop a schedule quietly vs. updating it, or to remove generated instances instead. The second sentence is a scope fact, not usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.