unschedule_campaign

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns to draft status, requires 'schedule' status, is authenticated via API key, respects rate limits and dry-run modes, and returns a JSON with status and campaign_id. Error conditions are noted.

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 well-structured with sections for summary, usage, authentication notes, args, returns, and example. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 single parameter and the presence of an output schema (and the description already covering return format), the description is complete. It covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use, how to use, constraints, and example.

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 only parameter campaign_id is described with a format example ('abc123def4'), the requirement to be in 'schedule' status, and a method to obtain it. This adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which provides no description for the parameter.

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 tool cancels a scheduled campaign and returns it to draft status. It differentiates from siblings like schedule_campaign and send_campaign by specifying it only works on campaigns in 'schedule' status and returns an error for drafts or sent campaigns.

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 provides clear guidance: 'Use to cancel a scheduled send before it goes out.' It specifies the prerequisite status and mentions campaign ID retrieval from list_campaigns. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like cancel_send, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to know when to use it.

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