Unschedule a draft

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

Annotations cover idempotency (idempotentHint=true), non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false), and open-world access, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds the key behavioral outcome those annotations do not convey: the post is not removed but reverted to a plain draft, which is exactly the state-change an agent needs.

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 tight sentence with the action and its consequence front-loaded. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the essential state transition. Minor gaps remain: it doesn't say what happens if the target is not currently scheduled, nor does it mention the publication-scoping behavior that the schema only partially implies.

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%, with both 'id' and 'publication' documented in the schema itself (including the loose hostname matching and default publication behavior). The description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb+resource ('Cancel a scheduled publication') plus the resulting state ('return the post to being a plain draft'), which clearly separates it from delete_draft (which would discard the post). It does not explicitly name the sibling it pairs with (schedule_draft) or distinguish itself from cancel_scheduled_note, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 usage is strongly implied — undo a scheduled publication without deleting it — and the contrast with deletion is inherent in the 'return to plain draft' phrasing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the related cancel_scheduled_note for notes, and no stated preconditions (e.g., that the post must currently be scheduled).

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