skill_schedule_cancel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It states the operation is a 'soft-delete' cancel, which implies the schedule is marked as inactive but not permanently removed. This is useful behavioral context, but the description does not mention whether cancellation is reversible, what happens to pending tasks, or any permission requirements. The scope of disclosure is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 a single, concise sentence that captures the essential action and effect ('Cancel (soft-delete) a scheduled skill run'). Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is nearly complete. It clarifies the soft-delete nature, which provides critical behavioral insight. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the schedule must exist), but the schema's required field and UUID constraint implicitly cover that. No major gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 100% (one parameter with a clear description: 'UUID of the schedule to cancel'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, confirming a neutral score.

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-action combination ('Cancel (soft-delete)') and identifies the exact resource ('a scheduled skill run'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'skill_schedule' (which presumably creates schedules) and 'skill_schedule_list' (which lists them).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the tool name and context signals (single required parameter 'schedule_id') implicitly convey that it is used to cancel a schedule by its UUID. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like 'skill_schedule_retrigger' are provided.

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