nws_public_speaker_cancel_change

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Without remote changes' is a genuinely useful trait — it tells the agent this is a local-only rollback with no server-side mutation — but it does not say whether the operation is idempotent, whether the confirmation id becomes invalid afterwards, or what permissions are needed.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is partly the reason key details (parameter origin, preconditions) are absent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a no-annotation cancel tool with an undocumented required id, the description leaves the agent guessing about prerequisites and post-cancel state.

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% for the single parameter, so the schema gives no meaning for 'confirmation_id'. The description does not compensate at all — it never mentions the parameter, its origin (presumably a preview_change call), or its format.

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?

States a specific verb ('Cancel') and a precise resource ('a pending public-speaker change preview'), which an agent can distinguish from the generic nws_cancel_change and from nws_public_speaker_commit_change. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'Cancel a pending ... preview' implies the precondition that a preview must exist, and 'without remote changes' implicitly contrasts with the commit sibling. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over nws_cancel_change or where the confirmation_id must come from.

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