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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds beyond those: it clarifies irreversibility, that rows already generated are refused, and that no refund occurs because scheduling never charged anything. These are valuable behavioral details not covered by annotations. The only minor gap is not detailing the exact response on success or failure, but that is covered by the output schema. No contradiction found.

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 four sentences, each with a distinct purpose: action, irreversibility, edge case (generated rows), and guidance on website_id. It is concise and front-loaded with the primary action verb. The only minor inefficiency is repeating the 'scheduling' context in the refund sentence, but it's still useful. Overall, it's well-structured and earns a 4.

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?

Given a destructive, irreversible operation with an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, limits (only pending articles), irreversibility, refund policy, and the conditional parameter. It could mention what happens on attempting to delete a non-existent ID, but the output schema likely covers that. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, earning a 4.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are described in the schema: 'scheduled_article_id' from list_scheduled_articles and 'website_id' from get_account. The description adds the crucial conditional logic for 'website_id' (required when multiple websites) and clarifies that 'scheduled_article_id' is for a pending article, but these are mostly redundant with the schema. The description does not add format or syntax details beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a clear verb ('Unschedules an article') and specifies the resource ('a pending article from the content calendar'). It clearly distinguishes from 'reschedule_article' (which would reschedule) and 'update_scheduled_article' (which edits rather than deletes), and it explicitly contrasts with 'generate' and 'archive' operations.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'removes a pending article from the content calendar', and when not to: 'Refuses rows that were already generated (use the articles tools to archive those)'. It also provides a conditional instruction ('Pass website_id when the account has several websites') and references 'get_account' for context. This is comprehensive and leaves no ambiguity.

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