server_cancel_operation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'cooperative' hints that cancellation is not guaranteed to be immediate, but the description doesn't explain what happens after the request: whether the operation stops, whether it can be resumed, whether the request is queued, or what the response indicates. It also doesn't mention any side effects or state changes. For a cancellation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool. However, it could have used the available space to add behavioral context (e.g., what 'cooperative' means) without becoming verbose.

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 tool has an output schema and only 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the cancellation semantics, what the response contains, or how to handle a failed cancellation. The sibling context shows many operation-related tools, but this description doesn't help an agent understand how cancellation fits into the operation lifecycle. The output schema exists but the description doesn't reference it or explain what the agent should do with the result.

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. It doesn't mention either parameter. The schema shows operation_id is required and reason is optional with a default, but the description doesn't explain what 'reason' is for or how it's used. An agent can infer operation_id identifies the operation, but reason's semantics are unclear. The description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 'Request cooperative cancellation for a tracked operation' clearly identifies the verb (request cancellation) and the resource (a tracked operation). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like server_operation_status and server_list_operations, which are about querying operations, and from server_lifecycle_status which is about server state. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it doesn't fully differentiate from other operation-management tools.

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 implies usage: use this when you want to cancel a tracked operation. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like server_operation_status or server_list_operations, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., operation must be running, cooperative cancellation means it may not stop immediately). The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the basic use case, but there's no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist.

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