cancel_mailing_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It warns about changing the real production account, specifics cancellation windows, and the double-gate check. This reveals important behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.

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 concise with three lines of critical information plus the endpoint. Each sentence adds value, and the structure with warning emoji is clear.

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 the complexity (cancellation with time windows and double-gating), the description covers the essential context. It lacks details about return values and error handling, but no output schema is expected.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'confirm' parameter by explaining its role in double-gating, but it does not describe scanbox_id, mailing_uuid, or action_request_id beyond their 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 clearly states 'Cancel a pending action request on a mailing.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tool 'request_mailing_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 description explains cancellation windows by action type (scan, destroy, forward) and double-gating requirements (DROPSCAN_ALLOW_WRITES, confirm). This guides the agent in when to use the tool, though no explicit 'when not to use' is given.

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