cancel_scheduled_plan

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the cancellation as a destructive operation is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that cancellation only applies before execution. It does not discuss irreversibility or side effects, but given the annotation coverage this is acceptable.

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 with no filler. The core purpose and timing constraint are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse.

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 simple one-parameter cancel action, the description covers the essential behavioral scope. The output schema and annotations provide additional safety information. It could be slightly more complete by pointing to how to find plan_id or distinguishing from canceling recurring schedules, but it is largely sufficient.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the plan_id parameter, such as where to obtain it or that it must reference a pending scheduled plan. While plan_id is a self-evident string identifier, the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the specific action (cancel), the resource (a pending scheduled plan), and the timing constraint (before it executes). This makes the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like cancel_recurring_schedule and reschedule_plan.

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 clear usage context: only pending scheduled plans that have not yet executed can be canceled. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the pending/before-executes condition gives adequate guidance for the common scenario.

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