a4a_discard_publication

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does useful work: it states that already-published copies remain untouched, that private messages are not deleted, and that an in-flight send returns an error. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or other side effects, but the core mutation behavior is well disclosed.

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 core action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by useful exclusions and an error condition. The description is compact and every sentence adds operational 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?

The output schema covers return values, and the description adequately explains the tool's side effects and limitations. The main remaining gap is that event_id is not explained at all, which is important for correct invocation but partly mitigated by there being only one required parameter.

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 schema has one required parameter, event_id, with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions event_id or explains its expected format. 'One exact local public retry' only indirectly implies that the parameter identifies the retry, so the description does not compensate for the schema 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 uses a specific verb, 'Cancel,' and a precisely scoped resource, 'one exact local public retry,' and it explicitly ties the operation to reviewing publication_status. It also distinguishes the action from adjacent operations by listing what it does not do.

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 gives a clear usage condition by saying the tool is used after reviewing publication_status, and it supplies meaningful exclusions such as not withdrawing published copies or retrying a held authorization. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative for repair or replacement cases, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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