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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the state eligibility gate and the half-applied consequence ('can leave its resource between versions until the next reconcile'). That consequence is not derivable from the schema or annotations and directly informs the cancel-vs-not decision.

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?

Three tight sentences with the action, the constraint, and the alternative front-loaded in that order; no filler. The parenthetical CLI-twin reference is the one arguably optional fragment, keeping it below a 5.

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 and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: eligibility rules, id source, alternative tool, and downstream risk. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 coverage is 100% and both UUID fields are already documented there, including that step_id comes from get_execution_details. The description's 'Get the step ids from get_execution_details' largely repeats 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Cancel one step of a running platform execution ... while the rest of the execution continues.' It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling cancel_execution by being step-scoped rather than operation-scoped.

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?

Gives explicit eligibility ('only running, pending or blocked steps can be cancelled'), names the discovery tool (get_execution_details), and routes to the alternative ('prefer cancel_execution when the whole operation is wrong'). Both when-to-use and when-not are covered.

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