delete_schedule

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavior: the confirm parameter makes the call a no-op when false, and it returns success=false without confirmation. This is valuable context beyond the annotation.

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 well-organized with a clear lead sentence, behavioral note, alternatives, and parameter list. Minor redundancy exists ('Requires confirm=true' and 'Returns success=false unless confirm=true' overlap slightly), but overall it is efficient and scannable.

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 simple two-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the core behavior, confirmation requirement, return signal, and alternatives. It does not specify what happens if the schedule is running, but the 'non-running' constraint partly addresses that. This is a minor gap rather than a major omission.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters clearly. The description repeats those meanings without adding new semantic detail, 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Delete a non-running schedule') and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools by pointing to create_interval_schedule and set_schedule_enabled. An agent can determine exactly what this tool does and what it is not.

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 states the key usage condition (non-running schedule), the required confirm flag, and explicitly names alternatives for adding or pausing schedules. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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