unreal_validation_cancel

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds the important caveat that cancellation does not undo validator side effects, which tells the agent that this operation has persistent consequences beyond simply stopping a pending task.

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 deliver the core action and the critical side-effect caveat with no filler. The main behavior is front-loaded, and every phrase 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 simple one-parameter cancel tool with a destructiveHint annotation and an output schema, the description covers the essential action and the key behavioral consequence. It leaves minor gaps around how job_id is obtained and what 'between callbacks' precisely means, but these are not blocking for correct selection and invocation.

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 schema documents job_id only as a string with length constraints and 0% description coverage. The description does not explicitly explain what job_id refers to, how to obtain it, or how it relates to the pending validation, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema-level semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and a clear resource ('pending validation'), and the phrase 'Does not undo validator side effects' adds precision about what the tool does not do. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unreal_validation_start and the unrelated cancel 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 gives clear context: use this when a validation is pending between callbacks and needs to be canceled. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the resource-specific wording is enough to route an agent away from functionally similar siblings like unreal_functional_cancel.

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