agency-hosting_deleteAgencyPlanWebsiteCronJobV1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: the deletion is permanent (irreversible) and the operation is idempotent. This is good, though it lacks information about prerequisites or side effects on the website.

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 very concise: two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the action, the second adds idempotency. Information is front-loaded.

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 the low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers the action and idempotency. However, it could mention what the tool returns on success (e.g., empty response) or any required context like permissions, but overall it is adequate.

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 both parameters well-described in the schema. The tool description itself does not add additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so a baseline score of 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 (permanently deletes), the resource (cron job identified by uuid), and the scope (from an Agency Plan website). It also mentions idempotency, which adds clarity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like creation or listing.

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 usage when one wants to delete a cron job, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., when not to delete, or if modifying is better). No exclusionary context is given, which is acceptable but not exemplary.

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