delete_scheduled_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Deletes' implies a destructive, likely irreversible mutation, but the description never says whether deletion is permanent, what happens if the id does not exist, or whether any permission is required. It adds only the 'locally stored' qualifier, which is modest context for a destructive operation.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity means it omits information a destructive tool arguably needs.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose irreversibility, error behavior for a missing id, or authorization needs. It covers none of these, leaving the agent with only the bare action.

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%: the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'Scheduled task id' with a type and range constraint. The description's 'by id' restates the schema rather than adding format or semantics, so the baseline 3 for high coverage 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 ('Deletes') and resource ('scheduled task'), plus scope qualifiers 'one', 'locally stored', and 'by id'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from neighbors like delete_rewrite_rule or delete_module by naming the resource, though it never explicitly contrasts with siblings such as get_scheduled_task or set_scheduled_task_enabled.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It does not say whether to prefer set_scheduled_task_enabled for soft disabling, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the task existing. The reader must infer all usage context from the name alone.

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