Cancel scheduled message

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

Annotations indicate it is a non-destructive mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds no further behavioral details, such as whether cancelation is reversible or what happens if the message is already sending. Minimal value beyond annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it lacks structure (e.g., no separation of purpose and usage) and could benefit from additional context.

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 with one required parameter, so the description is minimally adequate. However, missing output schema and lack of explanation about what 'cancel' entails (e.g., state changes, error conditions) leave gaps for an agent.

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?

Only one of two parameters (guild) has a schema description. The description does not elaborate on schedule_id, leaving its format or source ambiguous. Schema coverage is 50%, and the description fails to 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('pending scheduled message') and identifies the method ('by its id'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like schedule_message and list_scheduled_messages.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It is purely declarative without usage context.

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