ppsspp_batch_cancel

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

Annotations only declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false); the description goes well beyond by disclosing that the job's finally block releases the session lock immediately, that the abort lands at the step boundary (~1s mid-wait), and that cancelling a finished job errors. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs and cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Sectioned PURPOSE/USAGE/BEHAVIOR/RETURNS layout is front-loaded with the essential verb and every sentence carries information: id sourcing, lock-release timing, abort granularity, and the error case. No 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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still summarizes the return shape and directs polling to ppsspp_batch_status. Annotations plus description cover safety and side effects well; the only real gap is the unresolved required-vs-optional contradiction for batch_id.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description actively contradicts the schema by instructing the agent to omit batch_id for 'survey/list mode' while the input schema marks batch_id required. A misleading claim about a required parameter can cause a failed call, which is worse than saying nothing.

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 (cancel) and resource (queued or running background batch job), and implicitly distinguishes itself from ppsspp_batch_step and ppsspp_batch_status by naming them as the source of the id and the pre-check tool. An agent can route to it without opening the 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?

Gives explicit sourcing ('batch_id from ppsspp_batch_step(background=true)') and a clear guard ('check ppsspp_batch_status first if unsure'). The claimed 'omit batch_id for survey/list mode' is useful context but conflicts with the schema's required field, so guidance is not fully trustworthy.

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