Cancel Campaign Email Wave

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the agent can't infer: only pending sends are affected and delivered mail cannot be recalled. It omits retry-after-cancel expectations and idempotency semantics, which is a real but secondary 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?

Two tightly written sentences, irreversibility caveat front-loaded after the scope statement. Nothing redundant and no filler.

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?

With no output schema and a destructive, open-world operation, the description covers irreversibility of delivered mail but not what the response reports (counts of cancelled vs skipped), how partial eligibility failures behave, or why idempotency is mandatory. Adequate to act safely, incomplete for predicting outcomes.

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% for three required parameters, and the description says nothing about wave_id, idempotency_key, or the confirmation const 'user_authorized'. The agent must infer that cancel requires an explicit authorization token and a unique idempotency key from the raw schema alone — the definition does not compensate.

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 (stop pending sends in a wave), which clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings like get_campaign_email_wave and list_campaign_email_waves. The 'eligible pending sends' phrasing adds scope precision, though it stops short of naming the trial alternative (retry_campaign_email_wave) explicitly.

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?

'In an explicitly approved wave' implies a precondition (approval) without stating how an agent confirms eligibility or what to do if the wave is not approved. No mention of when to prefer get_campaign_email_wave/retry_campaign_email_wave instead. Usage is implied, not directed.

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