delete_band_schedule

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

Annotations only indicate destructive, non-read-only, open-world behavior. The description adds critical detail: the deletion is verified by read-back, unknown write outcomes are reported explicitly, and a transport acknowledgment alone is not success. This goes well beyond 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?

Three tightly packed sentences with no filler. The most important constraints—targeted deletion, read-back verification, and item_id sourcing—are front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 targeted delete operation, the description covers required parameter sourcing, scope safety, verification behavior, and timeout bounds. The output schema covers return values. The only mild gap is no explicit guidance on the optional timezone parameter, but it is likely unnecessary for item_id-based deletion.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain item_id provenance via get_band_schedule and gives a timeout_seconds range (5..90), but it does not describe timezone semantics or how kind relates to item_id beyond the schema's enum values.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Delete only the identified band alarm/reminder' and adds a verification step ('verify its absence by read-back'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling setters and getters like set_band_alarm, set_band_reminder, and get_band_schedule.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to obtain item_id from get_band_schedule and warns that other entries remain unchanged, which prevents misuse as a bulk-clear operation. It does not explicitly say 'use set_band_alarm to create instead,' but the deletion context is clear enough.

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