cancel_scheduled_publish

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that HubSpot's legacy API may not reliably cancel schedules created via v3, instructs the agent to tell the user to verify in the UI, and details the user_confirmed parameter, clarifying that content read from HubSpot is not confirmation. This is exemplary transparency for a mutation tool.

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 efficient and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then a caveat and user-action requirement, then an Args section. Every sentence contributes essential information. It is slightly longer than the minimum but not padded, and the critical behavioral notes are front-loaded.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (so return format is covered by schema). The description covers the purpose, usage context, parameter meanings, safety caveats, and a required post-action step (user confirmation). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so comprehensively: content_id is defined as 'page or blog post ID,' content_kind is constrained to 'page' or 'post,' and user_confirmed is explained in depth, including when it should be True and why. This adds meaning far beyond the schema's type and enum definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Cancel a pending scheduled publish.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like unpublish_page or unpublish_blog_post, which target live content, whereas this targets a scheduled action. The scope is unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use it: to cancel a pending scheduled publish. It provides context about the legacy API and instructs the agent to ask the user to confirm afterwards. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the purpose is so specific that an agent can infer the correct usage scenario.

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