Cancel an AI auto-creation intent and its drafts to revert unintended calendar entries. Pass the created item's ID to discard the draft and restore the previous state.
Undo/discard an AI auto-creation intent and its drafts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| frameId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.7.1Input schema / properties / id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / id / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotation Contradiction: the annotations declare destructiveHint=false, but the description says the tool will 'discard' an auto-creation intent and its drafts, which is naturally a destructive/deletion operation. The description also does not disclose whether the action is reversible or what side effects occur beyond the contradictory wording.
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 a single, short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action and the affected resource, though 'undo/discard' is somewhat redundant.
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 schema is simple with only two parameters, but the description leaves critical details unstated: what id identifies, when frameId is needed, whether the action is reversible, and what state results. The contradictory annotation further reduces reliability, so the description is not complete enough for confident invocation.
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%, and the description does not explain what 'id' refers to or what 'frameId' does. It only implies that the target is an auto-creation intent and that its drafts are affected, which gives minimal semantic context but is not enough to confidently map parameters.
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 states a specific action ('Undo/discard') and a specific resource ('an AI auto-creation intent and its drafts'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like skylight_approve_auto_creation, skylight_get_auto_creation_intent, and skylight_list_auto_creation_intents.
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 implies the tool is used when an auto-creation intent should be reversed or thrown out, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or workflow context. The usage is only implied by the word 'undo/discard'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.