pdg_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that cancelling is irreversible, idempotent for terminal handles, and returns 'cancelled' for such handles. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond just 'cancel a cook'.

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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, with three short segments each adding key information: operation, idempotency, and irreversibility. No filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers core behavior but lacks parameter roles, return value details, and edge cases (e.g., what happens if the cook is not running, or how cook_id vs node_path are used). Given no output schema, this is a noticeable gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it never mentions any of the parameters (ctx, cook_id, node_path). The term 'handle' is vague and not mapped to any specific parameter.

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 clearly states the tool cancels a running cook, using a specific verb plus resource. It also notes idempotent behavior for terminal handles, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pdg_cook and pdg_status.

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 clearly implies use when a cook is running and needs to be cancelled. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous; the idempotency and non-undo warnings add practical guidance.

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