Cancel Email Campaign

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description's real contribution is the partial-effect statement 'Messages already delivered stay delivered' — exactly the kind of blast-radius detail annotations cannot express — plus a mandatory confirmation step. It does not say what happens if the campaign is not in a cancellable state (error vs. no-op), which would close the loop on the non-idempotent hint.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the state precondition front-loaded ahead of the side-effect caveat and the confirmation instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, this covers eligibility, partial-effect, and the confirmation requirement. The only meaningful gap is undefined behavior when the campaign is not in a cancellable state.

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%: the single `id` parameter is fully typed (uuid with a regex pattern) and documented in the schema. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance for the id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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) and resource (the email campaign), and pins the scope to three explicit states: `scheduled`, `queued`, `sending`. The channel-specific wording makes it distinguishable from cancel-push-campaign and cancel-sms-campaign without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition for use (only in scheduled/queued/sending states) and a procedural gate (confirm with the user first, naming the campaign). It does not name what to do when the campaign is in another state, nor point to an alternative tool, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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