annuler_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one valuable behavioral fact: cancelling does not modify Discord ('sans modifier Discord'), signalling a non-destructive, bookkeeping-only operation. However, it says nothing about whether the plan is deleted or merely marked cancelled, whether cancellation is reversible, or what happens when the plan is already executed or the id is unknown.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scope restriction sits immediately after the action. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the omissions noted in other dimensions.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), so a short description is defensible, and the 'sans modifier Discord' clause covers the main safety concern. Still, for a state-mutating cancel operation with no annotations, the definition should say what the return looks like and what happens on invalid or already-executed plan ids.

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?

The single parameter plan_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description adds no meaning: it never says what a plan id is, where to obtain one (e.g., from preparer_plan or consulter_plan), or what format it takes. The only signal is the tool's own context, which is thin compensation for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Annuler un plan') and narrows scope to plans 'en attente', which separates it from executer_plan or consulter_plan in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 qualifier 'en attente' implies the usage condition (only pending plans can be cancelled), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as executer_plan or ouvrir_approbation. An agent must infer the routing from the word 'pending'.

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