preview_cancel_choice_response

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

The description's claim 'no cambia nada' aligns with the readOnlyHint=true annotation, adding no new information beyond the annotation. It does add that the preview is about 'todas las respuestas Choice de la cuenta actual', which gives a partial scope but is ambiguous about whether it means all responses in the account or all responses for the given choice_id. Since annotations already cover read-only behavior, the description contributes limited additional context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, scope, and side-effect in a compact form. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 preview tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential 'does nothing' aspect but leaves major gaps: it does not explain the parameters, is ambiguous about the scope of 'all Choice responses', and never mentions what the preview returns. Given there is no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, more detail is needed for an agent to call this correctly.

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 does not explain course_id or choice_id at all. It mentions 'respuestas Choice' but never connects the parameters to what they identify. With only 2 simple integer parameters, the description should at least hint at their roles, but it provides no meaning beyond their variable names.

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 ('Previsualiza' – previews) and a resource ('retirar todas las respuestas Choice' – withdrawing all Choice responses), and explicitly notes it changes nothing. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'cancel_choice_response', which performs the actual cancellation, and from 'preview_submit_choice_response' which previews a different action.

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 preview prefix and the phrase 'no cambia nada' convey that this tool is for dry-run or inspection. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative (cancel_choice_response) or state when to use the actual cancellation over this preview. The guidance is implied but not explicit enough for a 5.

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