hires_delete_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the action (cancel) and the condition (before processing), but does not explain side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements. The description is non-contradictory but limited in depth.

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 entire description is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word adds meaning, making it highly efficient.

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 simple one-parameter cancel operation, the description adequately conveys the purpose and timing. It could mention the return value or behavior when the message has already been processed, but these are not critical for understanding the tool's function.

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 provides a 'Message ID.' description for the 'id' parameter, and the description does not add further semantic detail about the parameter. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score 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 uses the specific verb 'Cancel' and identifies the resource as 'a scheduled message', clearly distinguishing this from other message-related tools like delete_message or update_message. It also adds the timing constraint 'before it is processed by the mailbox scheduler', which defines the exact scope.

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 the tool should be used when a scheduled message needs to be canceled prior to processing by the mailbox scheduler. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear that this is for scheduled messages, not sent or draft messages.

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