cancel_recurring_schedule

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description adding 'stops all future occurrences' provides useful context about the scope of the destructive action. However, the description does not disclose additional behavioral details such as irreversibility, whether past occurrences are affected, or any required permissions beyond the annotation hints.

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 that front-loads the action and consequence. It is efficient with no wordiness, earning a high mark for conciseness, though it is slightly under-specified for full structural completeness.

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?

The tool has one parameter, an output schema, and clear annotations for its destructive nature, so the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The main gap is the lack of guidance on where to find schedule_id or how the cancellation result is returned, but the output schema could cover the latter.

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 describes schedule_id with minimal detail (type and title only), and the description does not elaborate on what schedule_id refers to or how to obtain it. With only one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter semantics; however, the single parameter is fairly self-explanatory in context.

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 specific action ('Cancel a recurring schedule') and its effect ('stops all future occurrences'). It clearly distinguishes this from scheduling or listing tools among siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for other operations.

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 implies when to use the tool: when the user's intent is to stop a recurring schedule. It does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention any alternative tools (e.g., schedule_plan for creating schedules). This is adequate but leaves the agent to infer the usage context.

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