accounting_cancel_scheduleCancel an accrual schedule so no further periodic entries are generated. Entries already posted for elapsed periods are kept. Audit-logged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companyId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. | |
| scheduleId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: 'Entries already posted for elapsed periods are kept' and 'Audit-logged.' These go beyond the annotation by clarifying what is not destroyed and that the action is recorded. This is consistent with the destructive hint.
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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the primary action and consequence, and the second adds important side effects. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and side effects, including what is retained and audit logging. It does not mention prerequisites or reversibility, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. Overall, it is sufficient for a cancellation operation.
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 describes both parameters only as 'UUID value wrapper,' which is minimal but still provides 100% coverage. The description does not elaborate on the parameters, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies. No additional semantic value is added by the description.
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 'Cancel an accrual schedule so no further periodic entries are generated.' This specifies the action (cancel), the resource (accrual schedule), and the primary effect (ceasing generation of periodic entries), distinguishing it from sibling tools like accounting_create_schedule and accounting_get_schedule.
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 when an accrual schedule should stop producing future entries, and it provides clear context without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention when not to use it, such as for deleting already-posted entries, but the purpose is self-evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tool pairs are nearly identical (formation_extract_cap_table / formation_extract_cap_table_ocr; formation_start_formation / formation_create_formation), and several tools lack descriptions, making selection ambiguous. The scale of 202 tools with overlapping summaries (e.g., multiple cap-table summary tools) compounds the confusion.
Dominant snake_case `module_verb_noun` pattern, but with notable deviations: `captable_send_safe_for_signature` uses an inconsistent abbreviation, `check_company_name_availability` lacks a module prefix, and `get_list_` vs `list_` prefixes are mixed. Readable but not fully consistent.
202 tools is far beyond any reasonable surface for a single server, even a broad platform. The sheer number overwhelms and makes tool discovery impractical; many tools are peripheral (ads metrics) to the core formation purpose.
The domain appears well covered: formation flows, cap-table lifecycle (import, close, simulate), accounting (journal entries, periods, schedules), cards, documents, and transactions all have CRUD or lifecycle operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no card deletion, no counterparty creation), but they are unlikely to cause dead ends.