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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the action is irreversible (되돌릴 수 없으니), it requires a user confirmation step before invocation, and it demands a specific permission key. It does not describe what artifacts are lost in the normal path, though the schema's 'confirmed' parameter covers the refund case.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the irreversibility warning and confirmation instruction, then the permission requirement. No sentence is redundant.

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 destructive, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the operation scope, the irreversibility warning, the confirmation workflow, and the authorization requirement. The only gap is that it never contrasts the normal cancel path with the refund path, which is left entirely to the schema.

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%: run_id ('제작 번호') and confirmed (the full-refund path where created files are deleted) are both documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource (제작을 취소합니다) and narrows the scope to '진행 중이거나 대기 중인' runs, which cleanly separates it from the sibling vidia_start_run and from read-only siblings like vidia_get_run. An agent can identify the operation and its applicable state without opening any schema.

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?

It states the condition for use (run is in-progress or pending) and adds two prerequisites: obtain user confirmation first, and hold the '제작 시작 허용' permission key. It does not name an alternative for runs that are already finished, so it falls short of explicit when-not guidance.

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