cancel_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a non-obvious trait: cancel=false un-cancels a rain-skipped event and forces it to water anyway, revealing the tool's inverse capability. However, it omits permissions, reversibility, and side effects, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the edge case in a parenthetical. No waste, though the parenthetical could be split out for clarity.

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?

No annotations and no output schema mean the description is the sole source of behavioral detail. It covers the dual behavior but not the return value or schedule_id semantics. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 2-parameter mutation tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the cancel parameter's dual meaning (cancel vs force-water), but schedule_id — the required parameter — gets no explanation of what schedule it references or its format. Partial compensation for one of two params.

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 and resource ('Cancel a scheduled irrigation event'), which is clear on its own. The parenthetical adds the inverse operation (un-cancel/force watering), which helps distinguish it from stop_watering and water_zone. It stops short of explicitly contrasting those siblings, so 4 rather than 5.

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 parenthetical implies a use case — set cancel=false for a rain-skipped event — but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no guidance on when cancel=true is preferred. Usage is only implied.

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