conversations_cancel_scheduled_message

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, clearly indicating this is a mutating operation. The description 'Cancel a scheduled message' is consistent with these annotations and adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., permanence, reversibility, or side effects). Since the annotations cover the key behavioral traits, the description adds minimal incremental value but does not contradict them.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the essential action and object. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or ambiguity. This is an example of efficient, minimal prose.

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 the existence of a sibling tool conversations_cancel_scheduled_email_message, the description fails to clarify whether this tool handles only non-email scheduled messages or all types. It also omits any note about idempotency (though annotated) or potential error cases. For a simple cancellation operation with a single parameter, the description is minimal but leaves the scope ambiguous, making it incomplete for an agent navigating a large tool set.

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 schema provides a single parameter messageId with a trivial description 'Message Id'. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter. The tool description adds nothing to clarify the parameter's format, origin, or constraints. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance it further.

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 states a clear verb-action ('Cancel') and a specific resource ('a scheduled message'), which is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the closely related sibling tool conversations_cancel_scheduled_email_message, which cancels a specific subtype. Without explicit distinction, an agent might conflate the two, though the naming does provide a hint.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling conversations_cancel_scheduled_email_message or any other alternative. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where cancellation is applicable. The agent is left to infer the scope and intent from the name alone, which is insufficient for correct tool selection.

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