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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that 'all steps are lost,' making the destructive and irreversible nature of the operation clear. This is exactly the kind of critical behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a cancellation tool.

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 tightly written sentences carry all necessary information. The destructive consequence is front-loaded, and the alternative tool reference is provided in the second sentence. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema cancellation operation, the description is fully sufficient. It explains the action, the destructive outcome, the condition for use, and the alternative. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call this tool 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%, and the parameter description already identifies recordingId as coming from flow_recording_start. The tool description adds the 'in-progress' qualifier, which reinforces the temporal constraint, but it does not substantially extend beyond the schema's documentation. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 discard') with a clear resource ('an in-progress recording') and states the consequence ('All steps are lost'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from flow_recording_save, making the tool's purpose unambiguous relative to its sibling tools.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool (flow_recording_save) and the condition for using it ('if you want to keep them'). This gives clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance with no reliance on inference.

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