cancel_campaign_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates state (via [mutation] tag), changes the campaign to draft, and does not delete it. This provides adequate transparency for a simple operation, though it could mention prerequisites like the campaign must be scheduled.

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 concise (two sentences plus a tag) and front-loaded with the key action in the first sentence. Every word adds value, and the [mutation] tag provides a quick hint.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the action and the resulting state. However, it could mention the expected return value or confirm that the campaign must be in scheduled status.

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 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'campaign_id'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the baseline.

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 that the tool cancels the scheduling of a scheduled campaign and changes it to draft status, explicitly noting it does not delete the campaign. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_campaign or delete_campaign.

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 implies usage by stating the action and what it does not do, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cancel_campaign or archive_campaign. No direct guidelines are provided.

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