Cancel Delayed Referral

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what is destroyed (a pending delayed trigger) and the target-resolution fallback, but omits auth requirements, failure modes, and what happens if the delay has already elapsed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and then the return shape and targeting rule. No filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description is nearly complete for a low-complexity, low-parameter tool; the main residual gap is the participant identifier choice and error behavior.

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 only 33%: only campaignId is documented in the schema. The description clarifies campaignId targeting ('Targets campaignId if you pass it, otherwise GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID') but says nothing about the participantId vs participantEmail either-or requirement encoded in the anyOf, leaving that gap to the schema alone.

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 gives a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Cancel a pending delayed referral trigger for a participant before the delay elapses.' An agent can tell this undoes a pending trigger versus siblings like growsurf_trigger_referral or growsurf_refund_transaction. It stops short of explicitly naming and contrasting a sibling.

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?

It supplies a clear triggering context — 'before the delay elapses (e.g. on refund/cancellation)' — which tells the agent when this tool is the right call. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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