cancel_pending_draft

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the operation is soft (not a hard delete), it is gated on `sent: false`, and an out-of-window call yields 409 Conflict. It does not say whether the cancellation is reversible or what the success payload contains.

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?

Two tight sentences with the mutation semantics front-loaded and the precondition and error behavior following. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 one-parameter state-changing tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does to state, the eligibility window, and the error outcome. Minor gaps remain around reversibility and return value on success.

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?

With a single fully documented parameter (schema coverage 100%), the schema already carries all semantics for draft_id. The description adds situational context about which draft is eligible but no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does this much work.

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?

States a specific verb ('Soft-cancel') and resource ('pending draft') plus the scoping condition 'before the Mac agent dispatches it', which separates it from siblings like get_draft_status and list_drafts. It never names an alternative tool explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit 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?

Gives a clear operating condition ('Only works while the draft is still `sent: false`') and the failure case ('Once sent, this returns 409 Conflict'), which tells the agent when the call will succeed. It does not say whether the agent should first verify state with get_draft_status, so the pre-call workflow is left to inference.

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