Delete a schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that already-generated invoices remain untouched, that generation history is kept as an audit trail, and that the call returns the client plus remaining invoice/history counts. This clearly signals a destructive but scoped operation.

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 three short sentences with the action front-loaded. Each sentence adds distinct high-value information: what the tool does, what it preserves, and what it returns. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, this definition is complete. The description covers side effects and return values, while the schema fully documents the id parameter and its deletion implications. The only notable gap is alternative routing, which is already captured under usage guidelines.

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 already documented in the schema with 100% coverage, including the ability to pass a client name and the permanent deletion/re-creation warning. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opening sentence 'Remove a schedule' states a specific action and resource. The rest clarifies the scope of the deletion and what is preserved, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling lifecycle tools like schedule_pause, schedule_resume, and schedule_update.

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 implies this is for permanent removal and gives consequential context, but it never explicitly says when not to use it or recommends non-destructive alternatives such as schedule_pause for temporary stops. The guidance is mostly implied by the tool name and the deletion semantics.

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