Unschedule a draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the state transition from scheduled publication to plain draft, which is useful, but it does not disclose extra behavioral details such as whether the scheduled time is cleared or the behavior if the draft is already unscheduled. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It communicates action, object, and result efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with one required parameter and no output schema, the description, schema, and annotations together are sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The description clearly states the outcome, and the schema covers all parameters. It lacks edge-case guidance, but that is not critical for this tool's simplicity.

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 100%: the id parameter is described as 'Draft id to unschedule' and publication is explained clearly with a default behavior. The description itself adds no further parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Cancel'), a specific resource ('a scheduled publication'), and a clear outcome ('return the post to being a plain draft'). This distinguishes it from siblings like schedule_draft (inverse), delete_draft (destructive), and cancel_scheduled_note (which targets notes, not drafts).

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 implies when to use the tool—when a scheduled draft should no longer be scheduled. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, and it does not mention related siblings such as cancel_scheduled_note or delete_draft, leaving the agent to infer the boundaries from the word 'draft'.

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