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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context about the state-dependent behavior and the boundary of what cancellation can accomplish. It explains the business rule that prevents cancelling dispatched imports, which annotations do not convey. Minor missing detail: no description of what occurs on a successful cancellation, but the key behavioral constraints are disclosed.

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 with front-loaded action and condition. No fluff. Each sentence earns its place by providing the key rule and the exclusion. Highly concise and structured for quick comprehension.

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 simplicity of the operation and presence of annotations and schema descriptions, the description covers the essential decision logic: what can be cancelled and what cannot. It doesn't explain how to determine dispatch status or describe return values, but no output schema exists and those details are likely in related tools. Slightly more detail about the cancellation effect would elevate it, but it's adequately complete for an agent to make a safe first call.

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 67%, with projectId and idempotencyKey already documented in the schema. However, importId has no schema description. The tool description does not compensate for this gap, nor does it add any parameter-specific meaning. Baseline is moderate because the schema covers most parameters, but the description could have at least clarified that importId identifies the specific upload to cancel.

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 ('Cancel') and resource ('source upload'), with a clear precondition ('only if it has not been dispatched'). It goes beyond simply restating the tool name and effectively distinguishes this cancellation flow from the reconciliation path.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: only if the upload has not been dispatched. It also states when not to use and what to do instead: uncertain or dispatched imports must be reconciled and cannot be released by cancellation. This gives clear routing guidance even without naming a specific sibling tool.

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