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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance beyond annotations with 'Best-effort: a run already finishing may still complete', which tells the agent that cancellation is not guaranteed. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical best-effort caveat is included immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 three-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, a full output schema, and annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, the description is complete. It states the target state, the caveat, and the resource type. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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 100%, with each parameter already documented in detail, including environment pinning and get_me workspace grants. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel a queued or in-flight extract run', and adds clarifying scope with '(extract group)'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling cancel_* tools by naming the resource type and target run state.

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 gives a clear usage context: cancel only queued or in-flight runs, and expect best-effort behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives like delete_extract_run or other cancel_* siblings, but the resource-specific wording makes the correct use case clear enough.

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