Cancel a drafted SchoolMessenger absence by providing the draft ID and confirmation phrase to verify the request.
Cancel a previously drafted absence cancellation after exact confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draft_id | Yes | ||
| confirmation_phrase | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'exact confirmation' which implies a guarded action, but doesn't explain side effects, irreversibility, or what happens on success/failure. The wording is potentially misleading about whether it cancels a draft or executes a cancellation.
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 short and front-loaded, but its brevity sacrifices clarity. It is not well-structured because the meaning is ambiguous; conciseness does not compensate for under-specification.
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 tool has two parameters, an output schema, and several siblings, yet the description fails to place it in the workflow (draft_cancel_absence → cancel_absence). It doesn't explain the purpose of the confirmation phrase or the output format. The context is incomplete 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of draft_id or confirmation_phrase. It only hints at 'confirmation' without specifying what the phrase should be or how it is validated. The agent has no information to fill these parameters correctly.
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 verb 'Cancel' is specific, but the resource is ambiguous: 'a previously drafted absence cancellation' could mean undoing a draft or finalizing a cancellation. It doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling 'draft_cancel_absence'. The phrase 'after exact confirmation' hints at a confirmation step but doesn't clarify the overall action.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like draft_cancel_absence or submit_absence. It doesn't state that this tool is the final confirmation step in a two-stage process, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.