schoolpass_cancel_dismissal_change

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses the two-phase behavior: without confirm it previews and makes no change; with confirm it deletes the change and re-reads the calendar to verify the day returned to default. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral nuance an agent must know before invoking.

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?

Three tight sentences: the first gives the purpose and the next two explain the confirm-gated behavior without repetition or filler. The most important operational caveat (CONFIRM-GATED) is called out up front in caps, making it hard to miss.

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 3-param tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description conveys the essential return behavior for both modes (preview of what would be cancelled; calendar re-read confirming default). It does not cover edge cases like calling cancel when no change exists on the date, which is a minor gap.

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 100%: date, confirm, and student_id are all documented in the schema itself. The description's CONFIRM-GATED section restates the confirm semantics with the added detail of the calendar re-read verification, but parameter meaning is carried primarily by the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Cancel a previously-submitted dismissal/arrival change for a student on a date" states a specific verb, resource, and scope. It naturally differentiates from the sibling submit_dismissal_change by emphasizing "previously-submitted," and the name/title alignment reinforces the intent.

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 gives clear operational guidance for the confirm-gated flow: use preview mode without confirm:true, and use confirm:true only when actually canceling. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the scope condition ("previously-submitted") plus the sibling submit tool makes the selection boundary clear.

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