cancel_plan_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Escopo write' (write scope) and the 422 error, which are useful. However, it does not describe success responses, idempotency, or side effects. Given the simplicity of the operation, this is adequate but not rich; the write scope and error condition add some transparency but leave gaps.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that state the core purpose and a key error. It is front-loaded with the action and includes only relevant information. No wasted words, perfectly sized for the simple operation.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and one error condition, but lacks a description of the input parameter and any caveats (e.g., whether the subscription must exist, whether cancellation is reversible). Given the simplicity and the lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate but not fully complete for an agent to call it without ambiguity.

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 input schema has one parameter (subscription_id) with zero description coverage (0%). The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. The parameter name is somewhat indicative, but the description fails to explain that it identifies the subscription whose scheduled change should be cancelled, leaving the agent to infer its purpose.

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 clearly states the action (cancel) and the resource (a scheduled plan change), distinguishes it from cancel_subscription and change_plan by emphasizing 'AGENDADA' (scheduled). It also mentions the 422 error, which specifies a key behavior. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 indicates that this tool is for scheduled plan changes only, which implicitly tells an agent when to use it versus other sibling tools like change_plan or cancel_subscription. It also mentions the 422 condition as a usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or state when *not* to use it, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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