delete_schedule

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which covers the core behavioral profile. The description adds no extra context beyond naming the resource, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single sentence with no filler and the key verb is front-loaded. It is concise, though somewhat terse and missing potentially useful context.

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 simple one-parameter delete operation, the description plus annotations provide an adequate baseline. However, it lacks contextual cues such as where schedule_id comes from, whether associated runs are also deleted, or how this differs from toggle_schedule.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain schedule_id's format, provenance, or constraints. The parameter's meaning is inferable only from its name and the tool name, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a scheduled job'), making the operation clear. It distinguishes itself from schedule read/update/toggle tools and from delete_config/delete_schema, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_schedules can provide the schedule_id, or that toggle_schedule is the non-destructive way to pause a schedule. An agent must rely entirely on the tool name.

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