invoices_cancel_invoice_schedule

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

Annotations indicate the tool is mutable (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent, but the description adds no detail about what 'cancel' entails—whether it irreversibly removes the schedule, pauses it, or has other side effects. With annotations present, the description should clarify the exact behavior but does not, so it falls short.

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 extremely short, which is concise but lacks any structural elements like prerequisites or warnings. It is a single sentence that does not prioritize key information (e.g., that scheduleId is required). It is not verbose, but it is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema and three parameters, the description should explain expected outcomes or clarify the cancellation semantics. It does not mention return values, whether cancellation is reversible, or how the altId/altType defaults affect behavior. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's effects.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including scheduleId, altId, and altType. The description adds no extra meaning about how these parameters are used or why scheduleId is required, but given full schema coverage, 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 'Cancel an scheduled invoice' states a verb and object, but the object is ambiguous: it says 'scheduled invoice' while the tool name refers to 'invoice schedule'. This could mean canceling a recurring schedule vs. a specific scheduled invoice, and it does not differentiate from the sibling 'invoices_delete_invoice_schedule'. The purpose is recognizable but not precise.

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 vs. alternatives like delete_invoice_schedule or update_invoice_schedule. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or distinctions between similar operations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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