cancel_log_export

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses key behaviors: the export is 'permanently stops', takes effect 'immediately', and 'does not roll back already-processed rows'. It also states the 403 response on non-Enterprise plans, which is valuable context not in 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: what it does, behavioral consequences/retry, and access limitations. No fluff.

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?

Given the destructive nature, the description covers the essential context: what it cancels, permanence, no rollback, how to retry, and access restrictions. With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. This is complete for a cancellation mutation tool.

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 already provides 100% coverage with a description for export_id ('The unique ID of the log export to cancel'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Cancel a pending or running log export job.' It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming start_log_export and delete_integration, making the tool's unique role clear.

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 states when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'unlike start_log_export which queues one or delete_integration which removes the source.' It also provides the retry workflow (create_log_export and start_log_export again) and enterprise access expectations, offering clear guidance.

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