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

Annotations already declare mutation, destructiveness and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by specifying that PilotControl retira la publicación from any network where it was agendada and that published content is out of scope. It does not describe the result of a failed cancel (e.g., post not found), which would complete the picture.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action and its scope, followed by the boundary and the usage constraint. The parenthetical 'para eso no hay herramienta' is slightly redundant but still earns its place as a hard limit.

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 destructive mutation with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies scope, external side effects and a consent constraint. The remaining gap is the lack of a distinction from delete_post, which an agent could otherwise confuse with cancellation.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents post_id and even points to list_posts/get_post as the source. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so this sits at the baseline.

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 (cancelar) and resource (una publicación programada o pendiente) plus a clear scope boundary (lo ya publicado no se cancela). The one gap is that it never differentiates itself from the sibling delete_post, so an agent must infer whether cancelling differs from deleting.

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?

Gives both a when-to-use rule ('Úsala solo cuando el usuario lo pidió') and an explicit when-not condition (already-published content). It does not route the agent to an alternative tool such as delete_post or reschedule_post for adjacent cases, which keeps it from a 5.

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