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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: 'A video already verified is retained.' This tells the agent that cancellation does not remove a verified video, which is non-obvious and valuable. It does not cover auth requirements or what happens to the import record itself, keeping it from a 5.

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, zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the key retention behavior. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or vague filler.

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 one-parameter cancel operation with rich annotations and an output schema, the description gives enough to call the tool correctly in most cases: it states the purpose and the key retention rule. The only gap is parameter-level detail, which is not covered in the schema and not compensated here. That keeps it from a 5.

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% and the description never mentions import_id, its UUID format, or any constraints (e.g., must be an unfinished import's ID). With low coverage, the description is expected to compensate for the schema gap, but it provides no parameter semantics at all. The parameter name is intuitive, but that is not enough to reach a 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel an unfinished import.' It is clear what the tool does and distinguishes the target as an unfinished import. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or contrast with tools like retry_video_import or cancel_workflow_run, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'unfinished import' and the note that a verified video is retained, which gives a condition for when cancellation is appropriate. But there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statements or named alternatives (e.g., retry_video_import for failed imports), so guidance is only implied.

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