delete_firewall_schedule

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the critical context that the deletion is irreversible, which goes beyond the annotation's generic destructive signal. This is valuable behavioral disclosure that helps the agent understand the consequence of invocation.

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 that immediately states the action and the key warning. Every word earns its place, and the irreversible warning is front-loaded. No unnecessary filler.

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 delete operation, the description, annotations, and schema together provide sufficient context: what is deleted, how to identify it, safety parameters (confirm, dry_run), and the irreversible warning. There is an output schema, so return values need not be described. It does not mention that the schedule_id should come from search_firewall_schedules, but that is already in the schema.

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%, with each parameter including a description (e.g., schedule_id, confirm, dry_run, apply_immediately). The tool description adds minimal overlap by referencing 'by ID', but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Delete'), the target resource ('firewall schedule'), and the required identifier ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling delete operations like delete_firewall_rule and delete_schedule_time_range.

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 implies the tool should be used when deleting a firewall schedule, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any prerequisites. The intent is clear from the name and description, so this is adequate but not explicit.

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