Cancel a scheduled or unfinished post

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description goes beyond that by qualifying the destruction (hosted copies are removed) and stating reversibility via resume_publish, plus a user-confirmation requirement. It does not cover authorization scope or what the response contains, keeping it short of a 5.

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 core action and scope, followed by consequence, reversibility, and prerequisite. No sentence is redundant or restates the title.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations already covering the destructive profile, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: what state qualifies, what is removed, and how to undo it. The only omission is the return behavior, which is minor for a cancel operation and there is no output schema to lean on.

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 50%: confirmation_token is documented in the schema, and the description reinforces its purpose by saying the user's confirmation is required. However, job_id is undocumented in both places, and the description never clarifies that it is the publish job identifier rather than a media id.

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The description opens with a specific verb+resource ("Stop a post") and immediately narrows the scope to unpublished states (scheduled, waiting, in progress). That scope statement distinguishes it from siblings like delete_media or reschedule without the agent needing to open any schema.

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 states the applicable condition (post not yet published) and names the recovery path (resume_publish) plus a prerequisite (user confirmation). It stops short of explicitly contrasting with reschedule or delete_media, so the agent must infer those exclusions from the scope wording.

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