cancel_choice_response

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Retira' (removes) is consistent. The description adds the constraint 'solo las respuestas Choice propias aprobadas' (only your own approved ones), which provides some context, but the meaning of 'approved' and 'recent preview' is ambiguous. It does not explain what happens if the response isn't approved or if the preview is stale, nor does it disclose any side effects beyond removal.

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 sentence with no waste, so it is concise. However, it is so brief that it omits crucial context, making it under-specified rather than efficiently structured. The sentence is front-loaded with the action but lacks supporting details.

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 that this is a destructive tool with three required parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is significantly incomplete. It does not explain the confirmation_token requirement, when the tool is valid (e.g., after a preview), what happens if cancellation fails, or any prerequisites. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional information.

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%, and the description provides absolutely no information about the three parameters (course_id, choice_id, confirmation_token). It does not hint at the purpose of confirmation_token (likely a confirmation mechanism) or how the IDs relate to the action. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 identifies a specific action ('Retira' = remove) on a specific resource ('respuestas Choice propias aprobadas' = your own approved Choice responses), which partially distinguishes it from siblings like submit_choice_response. However, the phrase 'en la vista previa reciente' (in the recent preview) is vague and could confuse an agent about the exact scope. The purpose is clear enough but not fully precise.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'preview_cancel_choice_response' or other related tools. The description does not mention that this is the action version that should follow a preview, nor does it state any conditions for when cancellation is appropriate. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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