nexo_personal_script_unschedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that core crons are untouched, a valuable behavioral trait. However, it omits details about side effects, reversibility, authorization needs, or error conditions for a destructive 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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and a key constraint (not touching core crons). However, it lacks information on parameter semantics, expected output, and error handling, which would be helpful for a complete understanding.

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 one required parameter 'name' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'attached to a script' but does not clarify whether 'name' refers to a script name or a schedule name. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool removes all personal schedules attached to a script, with a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('personal schedules attached to a script'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from core cron operations, which helps differentiate from sibling tools like nexo_core_schedule_set.

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 usage for removing only personal schedules, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nexo_schedule_add or nexo_personal_script_schedules. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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