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

Annotations give a safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds the genuinely non-obvious part: cancellation is partial — pending rows are dropped while already-added people persist in the role. The idempotency sentence only restates idempotentHint=true, so it earns no extra credit, and permissions/prerequisites are still unstated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and outcome, then the partial-effect caveat. No filler and no restatement of the title alone.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral question (what survives a cancel) and idempotency. It stops short of saying how to obtain the import_id or how to verify the resulting state, which are the only material gaps.

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% for the single required parameter, and the description never mentions import_id — no hint about where it comes from (list_imports / get_import) or accepted format. The name is fairly self-evident, which keeps this from a 1, but the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Stop an import') in the very first words, which cleanly separates it from the surrounding import lifecycle siblings (run_import, get_import, list_imports, import_people). An agent can identify the operation without consulting the schema.

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 effect ('rows not added yet are cancelled') implies the when-to-use case — cancelling an in-flight or partially-applied import — but the description never states a condition or names an alternative. There is no guidance on what to do instead if the import already finished, or how to inspect state before cancelling.

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