outbox_cancel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the key precondition that only a pending draft can be withdrawn, but it does not disclose whether cancellation is irreversible, whether it deletes the draft, or what side effects occur. The usage scenario adds context, but mutation effects are still underspecified.

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 sentences, no filler. The action and precondition appear first, followed by a direct usage instruction and alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with an output schema, the description captures the core purpose, the trigger condition, and the recommended next action. It is slightly incomplete regarding post-cancellation effects or error conditions, but those are less critical given the tool's low complexity.

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 compensate for draft_id. It implies that the parameter identifies the draft being withdrawn, but it does not explicitly state this mapping or mention where the draft ID comes from, such as outbox_list. With a single simple parameter, the inference is fairly safe, but the description adds only minimal semantic detail over 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Withdraw a draft that is still pending'. It also adds a defining condition (the owner hasn't decided yet) and points to draft_message as the follow-up tool for a corrected message, which helps an agent distinguish it from related draft tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it when the owner says the proposed message is wrong'. It also names the alternative for the next step, draft_message, giving the agent a clear decision path after cancellation.

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