tokportal_unschedule_bundle_video

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations. It explains the dependency on a delivered saved account, the requirement for active TokPortal Coverage or permanent grandfathering, and the automatic renewal behavior. It also clarifies that if Coverage cannot renew, no task or media mutation starts. This informs the agent about side effects and edge cases. The annotations declare destructiveHint=true, which aligns with unscheduling, and readOnlyHint=false, also consistent. There is no contradiction.

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 four sentences long. The first sentence is direct and effective. The remaining three sentences cover important preconditions but could be more tightly integrated. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'account must have active TokPortal Coverage' and 'If Coverage cannot renew' are related). A more structured approach—perhaps a summary line followed by bullet points for conditions—would improve clarity without adding length.

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 absence of an output schema and the tool's complexity (dependencies on Coverage, grandfathering, renewal), the description adequately covers preconditions and edge cases. However, it does not describe the immediate result of a successful unscheduling (e.g., the video slot is removed from the bundle schedule, the bundle is updated). This missing outcome information reduces completeness for an agent that needs to understand what to expect after invocation.

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?

All three parameters have full schema descriptions (id: 'Bundle ID.', position: '1-based video slot position.', idempotency_key: 'Optional Idempotency-Key header for safe retries.'). The tool description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. Per the scoring guidelines, high schema coverage (>80%) sets a baseline of 3, which is appropriate here.

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 'Unschedule one video slot,' which clearly states the verb (unschedule) and resource (video slot). This is specific and distinct from siblings like 'reset_bundle_video' or 'configure_bundle_video.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from these siblings, and the additional conditions about Coverage and grandfathering, while relevant, slightly dilute the core purpose. Overall, it is clear but not maximally distinctive.

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. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference any sibling tools such as 'tokportal_reset_bundle_video' or 'tokportal_configure_bundle_video.' The focus is entirely on preconditions (Coverage, grandfathering) rather than usage context. This leaves an AI agent to infer the appropriate scenario solely from the tool name.

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