discord_cancel_scheduled_task

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description discloses that the message will not be sent again, that the result reports whether the task existed, and that only in-process tasks are affected. Those scope and outcome details are exactly what an agent needs before calling a cancel operation; it does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, then the return semantics, then the scope limitation. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

Single required parameter, output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile. The description still adds the non-obvious in-process scope caveat and the existence-check return behavior, which is more than enough for correct 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 coverage is 100% and the task_id property already documents its origin ('Task ID returned by discord_schedule_message'), so the description adds no format or edge-case detail beyond restating 'by its task ID'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantics.

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 and resource ('Cancel a scheduled message by its task ID') and names the exact identifier used, which cleanly separates it from discord_schedule_message and discord_list_scheduled_tasks. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 scope note ('Only affects tasks created in this server process; a durable external scheduler is not reachable from here') is an effective when-not constraint that prevents wasted calls, and the parameter points back to discord_schedule_message as the source of the ID. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling to use for other scheduler types, so not a 5.

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