sym_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses that the operation destroys pending/not-started items and explicitly guarantees running renders are untouched. It does not mention irreversibility or credit/billing side effects, but the core destructive scope and its most important exception are clear.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the single critical caveat about running renders follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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, this is nearly complete: it says what will be removed and what will be preserved. It could add a note about what 'everything' refers to or whether the action is reversible, but the essential invocation knowledge is present.

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 is empty with no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's global wording ('everything') reinforces that no filters or arguments are expected, which is the only parameter-related meaning an agent needs.

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 concrete action ('Remove') and a precise scope ('everything that has not started yet'), then clarifies the boundary with 'Running renders are not interrupted.' This clearly identifies the tool as a cancel-all-pending-jobs operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sym_generate, sym_status, or sym_wait.

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 behavior implies when to use it: to clear all not-yet-started work while leaving active renders alone. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly give a when-to-use/when-not-to-use recommendation, so the routing decision is mostly left to inference.

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