Cancel a persistent instruction by its integer ID to stop it from executing. Provide the ID to remove the instruction and prevent further actions.
Cancel a Persistent Instruction by integer ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Integer ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that an instruction is canceled but does not describe side effects, irreversibility, whether cancellation only applies to pending instructions, required permissions, or what the response will be. This is minimal behavioral information for a mutating operation.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrases. It communicates the action, the target resource, and the required parameter input efficiently.
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?
With only one fully documented parameter, the call itself is straightforward. However, the description does not clarify cancellation semantics or distinguish this tool from delete and scheduled-instruction siblings, and there is no output schema to compensate. It is minimally adequate but leaves notable context missing.
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 covers the single parameter id with 100% coverage, and the description only repeats that it is an integer ID. No additional semantic meaning is added beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('Persistent Instruction') along with the required identifier ('integer ID'). It is not a tautology and an agent can understand the basic operation. However, it does not differentiate from the similar sibling persistent_instructions_delete, so a small ambiguity remains.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus closely related alternatives such as persistent_instructions_delete, scheduled_instructions_cancel, or instructions_cancel. There are no conditions, exclusions, or references to other tools. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.