aap_delete_schedule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the critical two-step confirmation flow via the 'confirmation_token: Token from first call' comment. This goes beyond the annotation by revealing that the tool behaves in two phases. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact: a one-line action, a clear 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning, and a simple parameter list. Every sentence earns its place—no fluff, and the most important warning is front-loaded.

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 delete tool, the description adequately covers the core behavioral aspect (confirmation token flow) and the object being deleted. It does not explain what the first call returns (presumably a token) or how to obtain the schedule_id, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it remains reasonably complete.

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 compensate. It identifies both parameters: schedule_id is given a basic 'Schedule ID' description (matching the schema title), while confirmation_token is explained as 'Token from first call', adding crucial semantic context. However, schedule_id lacks guidance on how to obtain it or constraints, leaving the compensation incomplete.

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 begins with 'Delete an AAP schedule.' which is a specific verb+resource (delete + schedule) and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like aap_update_schedule or aap_delete_workflow_template. It also adds a loud 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning, reinforcing the delete action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update a schedule instead of deleting it, or how this differs from canceling a job). The 'requires confirmation' hint is a process note, not a selection guideline. A clearer statement such as 'Use this to permanently remove a schedule; use update_schedule to modify or disable' is absent.

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