remove_schedule

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

The description explicitly says it 'Delete[s] a schedule', but the annotation declares destructiveHint=false, which per MCP means the tool performs only additive updates. An agent reading both cannot tell whether data is actually destroyed. The note about devices being released at the next apply is useful timing context but does not resolve the destructive/non-destructive conflict.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and free of filler. The second sentence carries genuinely useful timing information rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the action plus its downstream effect. However, it omits permission/auth requirements and leaves the destructive semantics unresolved.

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?

There is a single parameter with 0% schema description coverage. 'By id' implies the argument is the schedule identifier, but no format, validity range, or failure behavior (e.g., unknown id) is given, so compensation for the schema gap is minimal.

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 ('Delete'), a specific resource ('a schedule'), and the addressing mechanism ('by id'). It is cleanly separable from siblings such as add_schedule, list_schedules, and apply_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?

Usage is only implied — removing a schedule you no longer want. It never states when to prefer this over add_schedule/list_schedules, nor how it relates to apply_schedules, which is the step that actually releases the devices.

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