browser_schedule_cancel

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

Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the schedule is 'pending in-memory read-only,' implying non-persistent and safe to cancel, but does not address what happens after cancellation (e.g., is the schedule removed entirely? can it be recreated?). It lacks details on side effects, such as whether associated resources are affected.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential action and scope with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 complexity of a cancellation tool with no annotations, output schema, or sibling differentiation, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of return values, error states, or interaction with other browser scheduling tools. The agent would not know if cancellation is idempotent or what success looks like.

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 input schema has one parameter (schedule_id) with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not explain what a 'pending in-memory read-only schedule' is or how to obtain the schedule_id. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory and the regex pattern provides implicit guidance. The baseline is 1 due to no schema coverage, but the description partially compensates by clarifying the schedule type.

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 identifies a specific verb (Cancel) and resource (pending in-memory read-only schedule), making its function distinct. It differentiates this tool from siblings like browser_schedule_snapshot or browser_schedule_status by focusing on cancellation. However, it could be slightly more specific about what type of schedule is being cancelled (e.g., a snapshot schedule).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_schedule_status or browser_schedule_result. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the schedule must exist), when to avoid use, or how it relates to other scheduling tools. This is a critical gap for a cancellation action.

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