Delete a scheduled instruction by its integer ID to remove unwanted automation. Specify the ID to permanently delete the scheduled action from your DEX tenant.
Delete a Scheduled Instruction by integer ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Integer ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates that the operation is a delete. It does not mention irreversibility, permissions, cascading effects, or what happens to the scheduled instruction after deletion.
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 sentence contains the action, the object, and the required identifier with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 one-parameter delete, this is minimally adequate, but the absence of annotations and an output schema leaves side effects and expected results undescribed. A brief note on permanence or a pointer to scheduled_instructions_cancel would make it 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?
The only parameter, id, is fully described in the schema as a required integer, and the description merely echoes 'integer ID.' With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; no additional semantic value is added.
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 clear action—'Delete a Scheduled Instruction by integer ID'—with the resource and ID parameter specified. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like scheduled_instructions_cancel or persistent_instructions_delete, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
No guidance is given on when deletion should be used versus alternatives such as scheduled_instructions_cancel or scheduled_instructions_update. The agent is left to infer the tool's role from its name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.