cancel_log_export

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it states the stop is permanent, takes effect immediately, and explicitly does not roll back already-processed rows. It also discloses the Enterprise plan gate and the 403 response for non-Enterprise plans, which annotations cannot express.

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, zero filler. The core action and scope come first, sibling disambiguation second, and the retry/eligibility caveats last – a well front-loaded structure for a destructive tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a destructive, single-parameter mutation, the description covers reversibility, timing, side effects, retry path, and authorization gating – nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (export_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about ID format or where to obtain the export_id, which is the appropriate baseline-3 outcome when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb (cancel) plus a resource (log export job) and narrows the target state to 'pending or running'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from start_log_export (queues) and delete_integration (removes the source), so an agent can pick it out of a large sibling set without opening any 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 both when-to-use-by-contrast (it is not start_log_export and not delete_integration) and the exact remediation path if the cancel was a mistake: call create_log_export and start_log_export again to retry. The Enterprise gating and 403 outcome are stated as preconditions, so an agent can pre-check eligibility.

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