cancel_scheduled_product

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'cancel' implying destruction, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or what happens to associated resources. This is insufficient for safe usage.

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 extremely brief (one sentence), which is concise but at the cost of clarity and completeness. It reads as a terse label rather than a helpful guide, missing important details.

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 simplicity (1 param, output schema exists), the description should cover basic usage and outcomes. However, it lacks any information about return values, error conditions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 description mentions canceling 'by name' which corresponds to the single required parameter, but it does not explain what format the name should follow or where to obtain it. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 verb ('cancel') and the resource ('scheduled product / ISO'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like cancel_job, which target different entities. The mention of 'by name' indicates the primary input. However, the term 'ISO' is ambiguous without further context.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cancel_job), nor any prerequisites or side effects. The description simply states the action without context.

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