Remove Micro schedule

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

The description adds a useful side-effect disclosure beyond the annotations: it cancels pending or retryable deliveries. The destructiveHint and idempotentHint already signal safety-relevant traits, so the added cancellation detail is meaningful and non-contradictory.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to either the action, the target, or the consequence.

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?

With the destructive and idempotent hints already present, an output schema available, and the schema documenting the required confirm field, the description's key addition of delivery cancellation makes it complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 67%, with confirm and path documented but scheduleId having only a pattern. The phrase 'one exact schedule' adds some meaning around scheduleId as an exact identifier, but the description does not provide further parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already offers.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove'), a concrete resource ('one exact schedule'), and a meaningful behavioral scope ('cancel its pending or retryable deliveries'). This clearly separates it from siblings like micro_schedule_set, micro_schedule_run, and micro_schedules.

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 when to use the tool: when you need to remove a single schedule. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as updating a schedule via micro_schedule_set or running it via micro_schedule_run, leaving some routing to inference.

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