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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral aspects. It discloses the auth requirement and the operational window, which are important. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., whether cancellation is reversible), error conditions (e.g., what happens if the intent already executed), or the response shape. This is adequate for a simple cancel operation but not rich.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action ('Cancel a planned intent') and packs essential context (timing and auth) with zero wasted words. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the key operational context: the cancellation window and auth requirement. It does not elaborate on edge cases or return values, but for a straightforward cancel operation, this is reasonably complete. A full description might mention what happens on failure, but the current text is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and prerequisite.

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 schema description already fully covers the parameter 'id' (intent id uuid), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add further semantic details about the parameter beyond that, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the verb 'Cancel' and the resource 'planned intent', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_intents or create_intent. It also adds context about the timing window ('a few-second window before execution claims it'), which directly clarifies the tool's specific role.

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 notes the timing window ('before execution claims it') which implies when to use it, and mentions 'Auth required' as a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternative tools (e.g., a force-cancel or revert), so guidance is clear but not fully elaborated.

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