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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the 'WRITE:' marker, the exact state transition (SCHEDULED → DRAFT), and the HTTP method/path. It omits error behavior when the campaign is not in SCHEDULED state and any permission requirements.

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?

Two terse sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the state transition, then the endpoint. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 mutation with no output schema and rich annotations, this covers purpose, precondition, effect, and endpoint. The only meaningful gap is failure behavior when the campaign isn't SCHEDULED, which an agent would likely need to handle.

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 coverage is 100% and the single campaign_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (numeric id, regex/integer constraint), so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the path variable as {id}, adding no format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (cancel the schedule), a specific resource (a SCHEDULED campaign), and the resulting state (back to DRAFT), plus the underlying endpoint. The 'SCHEDULED' precondition and DRAFT outcome distinguish it cleanly from the inverse sibling emailchef_schedule_campaign.

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 'of a SCHEDULED campaign' precondition tells the agent exactly when this tool is applicable, and 'cancel the schedule' implies it is the inverse of scheduling. It stops short of naming emailchef_schedule_campaign as the alternative or saying what to do if the campaign is not currently scheduled.

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