computer.cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'cancel' without explaining side effects, whether cancellation is reversible, what happens to ongoing operations, or how the confirm_token parameter influences behavior (one vs all). This is a significant gap for a potentially destructive action.

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 declarative sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no extraneous words. However, it is slightly under-specified, which reduces the effectiveness of the conciseness.

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?

The tool appears to be part of a computer control system with sibling tools like computer.wait and computer.invoke. The description is too vague about what operations are cancellable, how confirm_token selects between one/all, and what the outcome looks like. No output schema exists, so the description needed to explain more but did not.

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 one param (confirm_token) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention it. The phrase 'one or all' implies a token selects a specific operation, but the mapping is never stated. The description adds minimal meaning 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 clearly states the action (cancel) and resource (unconfirmed high-risk operations), and specifies the scope (one or all). It is concise and distinct from sibling tools which are mostly about waiting, inspecting, or invoking, not canceling.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or what constitutes 'unconfirmed high-risk operations'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools like computer.execution or computer.act.

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