Cancel scheduled posts

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: skips are silent rather than an error, published content is untouched, and a whole fanned-out group must be passed together. It does not describe the returned result (counts vs. ids), which is the remaining gap.

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, no filler, with the primary action and its scope constraint front-loaded and the group caveat last. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the critical caveats an agent needs (unpublished only, silenceskips, unfixable). Only the response shape on partial cancellation is left unstated, a minor omission given there is no output schema to lean on.

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%, so postIds and workspaceId are already documented, establishing the baseline of 3. The sentence 'Pass every id in a fanned-out group to cancel it whole' adds semantic meaning the schema does not carry: the ids are not independent and partially-cancelled groups are an intended usage pattern.

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 (posts) and narrows scope to 'posts that have not published yet', so an agent can tell it apart from reschedule_posts or delete_video_job without opening a schema. The parenthetical about fanned-out groups further pins down what 'a post' means operationally.

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?

Clearly bounds the situation: only unpublished posts can be cancelled, anything published or mid-publish is skipped, and unpublishing is not possible. That gives the agent a when-not condition, but no named alternative is offered (e.g. reschedule_posts for moving a live post), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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