Cancel Push Campaign

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description earns credit for adding genuinely new behavior: the state precondition that gates the operation, the partial-effect guarantee ('messages already delivered stay delivered'), and the human-confirmation step. It stops short of saying what happens on a rejected cancel or what the response contains, which keeps it off a 5.

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, each with a distinct job: what it does and when, what survives, and the confirmation ritual. The precondition is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 destructive single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key gaps an agent needs: the eligible states, the irreversibility boundary, and the confirmation gate. The only omission is failure behavior when the campaign is not in an eligible 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?

There is one parameter, `id`, and schema coverage is 100% with its own description plus a UUID format and regex pattern. The prose adds nothing about the id beyond the schema, 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') plus resource ('the push campaign'), and the channel word 'push' separates it from cancel-email-campaign and cancel-sms-campaign without needing to open 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 an explicit applicability condition (only `scheduled`, `queued` or `sending`) and a procedural requirement to confirm with the user while naming the campaign. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the channel distinction is unambiguous from the name and title.

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