delete_scheduled_post

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that already-sent posts are unaffected, which is a non-obvious behavior. However, it does not mention whether cancellation is irreversible, what response/error is returned, or any authorization requirements, so transparency is partial rather than complete.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the key caveat about already-sent posts follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter cancel operation, the description is largely sufficient: it defines the target state (pending) and the no-op condition (already gone out). Minor gaps like return behavior or permissions exist, but the tool's simplicity means these are unlikely to block 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?

The schema coverage is 100%: the only parameter, id, is already described as 'The scheduled post id, from list_scheduled_posts'. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not add extra value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel') with a clear resource ('pending scheduled post') and a temporal condition ('before it goes out'). It clearly distinguishes itself from publish/read tools in the sibling set, and the 'no effect on a post that's already gone out' clause removes ambiguity about scope.

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 states when the tool applies: canceling a scheduled post that has not yet gone out. It also gives an explicit exclusion: it has no effect on posts already sent. It does not name alternatives directly, but the timing constraint and id source in the schema make the intended use clear.

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