growsurf_cancel_delayed_referral

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the 'before delay elapses' limit and the return shape, but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if the delay already elapsed or the participant is not found). It provides some context beyond annotations but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured sentences: the first states the action and context, the second covers return format and campaignId default. It is efficient and avoids fluff, though the return format might be redundant given an output schema exists.

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 description covers the core purpose and typical scenario, but misses edge cases like behavior after the delay elapses, error messages, and which participant identifier to prefer. With an output schema present, it is adequate for a simple cancel operation but not fully complete.

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 only 33% – only campaignId is described. The description clarifies campaignId's default but leaves participantId and participantEmail entirely undocumented. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving param semantics weak.

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 clearly states the action ('cancel'), the resource ('a pending delayed referral trigger for a participant'), and the timing condition ('before the delay elapses'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like growsurf_trigger_referral, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives a specific use case ('on refund/cancellation') and implies the constraint that cancellation is only valid before the delay expires. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer routing logic.

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