bridge_cancel

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond that: cancellation is a request requiring receipt polling, and it does not revert file changes. This gives the agent a realistic model of the tool's behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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, each carrying distinct information: the action, the verification workflow, and the non-undo limitation. The most important procedural detail is front-loaded, and there is no redundant 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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description captures the essential workflow and limitation. It could explain how the receiptId is obtained or what the cancellation receipt looks like, but the combination of annotations and concise description makes it sufficiently complete for a simple cancel operation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the receiptId parameter or where it comes from. 'Poll receipt to verify' hints at the role of a receipt, but it never explicitly ties receiptId to the cancellation request or to a prior bridge_submit call, so the agent must infer the parameter's meaning.

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 action ('Request cancellation'), a specific target ('bridge-owned running job'), and adds a key distinction with 'Does not undo file changes.' It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the resource and action are clear enough to separate it from bridge_submit or bridge_steer.

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 gives clear operational context: cancellation is requested, not performed instantly, and the agent should poll a receipt to verify. It also warns that file changes are not undone, which helps the agent avoid using this tool as a rollback. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the guidance is still actionable.

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