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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false): it discloses that cancellation is never charged quota, that cancelling an assembly cascades to component calculations, that a cancelled run is unrecoverable, and that an already-finished run is returned unchanged. These are non-obvious behavioral facts an agent needs before invoking a destructive 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by tightly ordered sentences covering cost, cascade behavior, irreversibility, alternative tool, and return payload. No sentence is filler; even the return-value sentence compensates for the absent output schema.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, eligibility, cost implications, cascade effects, irreversibility, alternative tool, and return contents. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 schema already documents calculation_id with format uuid and provenance ('as upload_and_quote, quote_part or list_calculations return it'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (stop/cancel) and resource (calculation), plus the scope of which runs are eligible ('queued or running'). An agent can immediately distinguish it from siblings like get_calculation, list_calculations, or quote_part.

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 says when to use it ('as soon as a run is no longer wanted', e.g. wrong file, lot size or costing environment) and names the alternative for the follow-up action ('To price the part again, use quote_part'). Both the trigger condition and the sibling routing are given.

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