cancel_scheduled_send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required permission but does not explain what happens after cancellation, whether it is reversible, or any other behavioral traits like rate limits or side effects. The output is not described despite an output schema existing.

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 very concise with one sentence and a permission note. No unnecessary words, but it sacrifices completeness. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return value, how to identify the scheduled send, or any post-cancellation effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 add meaning to the parameter 'invoice'. However, the description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent without any guidance on what the invoice refers to or how to obtain its value.

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 action ('Cancel') and the resource ('a previously scheduled send'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like schedule_send and send_invoice through the context of cancelling a scheduled operation.

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 a permission requirement ('Requires invoices:send'), which is a usage guideline, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context of cancelling a scheduled send is implied.

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