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

With only readOnlyHint=false from annotations, the description carries real weight: it discloses the required permission (ManageBases), the timing window, the refund of the escrowed jump resource, and an explicit exclusion case (isolated jumps). This is exactly the kind of side-effect and precondition detail annotations cannot express.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and the constraints in a parenthetical. Every clause earns its place, though the nested conditions make it slightly heavy 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?

For a one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers permission requirements, the timing constraint, the refund side effect, and an exclusion case. Only the exact failure/response behavior outside the window is left implicit.

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?

Only one parameter (session_id) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3 for high 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?

Names a specific verb (cancel), a specific resource (faction mobile-base jump), and a specific state (during preparation). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling jump_faction_mobile_base and move_faction_mobile_base.

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?

Gives concrete conditions for use: only during the 90-tick preparation window, and not for isolated jumps. It also states the ManageBases permission prerequisite. It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use outside these conditions, so it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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