flow_cancel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly discloses the key behavioral trait: pending items are removed, but already-started clips continue. It does not mention reversibility or response behavior, but the core side effect is transparent.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the boundary condition is stated immediately after.

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?

For a zero-parameter cancellation tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete to invoke correctly. It explains what will be removed and what will be preserved, leaving little ambiguity for the agent.

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 input schema has zero parameters and complete schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. With 0 params, this is a solid baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove') and a clear resource/scope ('everything that has not started generating yet'), and explicitly distinguishes what is affected from what is not. This makes its purpose distinct from siblings like flow_generate, flow_status, and flow_edit.

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 when to use the tool: when you want to cancel generation tasks that have not started. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it beyond noting that in-progress clips are not interrupted.

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