aethis_cancel_generation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description goes further by disclosing that cancellation 'may be cooperative rather than immediate', that only project ownership is released, that outcomes are 'cancelled or already_cancelled', and that an API key is required. This is meaningful added context, though the destructive/idempotent framing partly restates 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?

Front-loads the core action and the required workflow order, and each sentence carries useful guidance. It runs somewhat long, and the closing 'It is a destructive mutation' sentence largely duplicates the destructiveHint annotation.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, approval requirement, possible outcomes and API-key need. It stops short of naming when an agent should NOT cancel or listing alternative tools, but the essential invocation context is present.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the binding intent ('bind the exact job_id', confirm_job_id 'protects against accidental target mismatch') but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource ('cancellation of one observed generation job') and adds scope ('release only its project ownership'), which lets an agent distinguish this from sibling mutations like aethis_archive_project or aethis_publish.

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 names the prerequisite and ordering ('First call aethis_generation_status and bind the exact job_id') and states the required human-approval condition ('agents must obtain a fresh explicit user reply before calling'), leaving little to inference.

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