Delete Pipeline Schedule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description nonetheless earns credit for spelling out 'permanently' and 'irreversible' plus the cascading removal of variables, which annotations cannot express. It stops short of stating required permissions or whether a 404/409 is returned for an already-deleted schedule.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the destructive effect before the safer alternative. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

The destructive nature and the pause alternative are covered well for a two-parameter mutation tool, and no output schema means return values need no explanation. The unresolved gap is project_id: with 0% schema coverage, the description should say whether it accepts a path or numeric ID and what happens when it is omitted.

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 carry parameter meaning, but it only restates that pipeline_schedule_id is required — information already in the schema's required array. The optional project_id (string-or-null) is never mentioned, leaving an agent unsure how the project scope is resolved.

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 and resource ('Delete a pipeline schedule') and adds scope the name alone does not convey: the schedule's variables are removed too, and the action is permanent. That distinguishes it clearly from siblings like gitlab_update_pipeline_schedule and gitlab_delete_pipeline.

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?

Names an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: 'prefer gitlab_update_pipeline_schedule with active=false to pause.' This is concrete routing guidance with the exact parameter value, not a vague suggestion.

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