cron_remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '删除定时任务' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., stopping running tasks), or provides confirmation feedback. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single phrase '删除定时任务', which is extremely concise and front-loaded with the core action. There is zero wasted language, making it efficient for quick comprehension without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as what happens post-deletion, error conditions, or return values. For a mutation tool, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use it safely and effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'jobId' clearly documented as '任务ID' (task ID). The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or where to obtain the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 '删除定时任务' (delete scheduled task) clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (scheduled task), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like cron_add (add), cron_list (list), cron_run (run), and cron_status (check status) by specifying the destructive action. However, it doesn't specify whether this deletes by ID or other criteria, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid jobId), when not to use it (e.g., if the task is currently running), or how it relates to sibling tools like cron_list to find IDs first. This leaves the agent with minimal context for proper tool selection.

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