cancel_filter_research

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it clarifies that cancellation is idempotent, that the returned state may be 'cancel_requested' rather than 'cancelled', that completed results are not deleted and attempts are not refunded (sharpening the meaning of destructiveHint=true), and that the research:run scope is required. Nothing here contradicts the annotations.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with the action, trigger condition, and caveats front-loaded; every clause carries unique information and none repeats the schema or annotations verbatim.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the returned state and the non-effects (no deletion, no refund) plus the required auth scope, so an agent knows what happens and what it gets back. It stops short of naming sibling tools or stating whether the call returns immediately, which is a minor gap.

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?

Only one parameter, job_id, which the schema documents with a uuid format and regex pattern. The description adds only the implied ownership constraint ('owned API research job'), giving slight meaning beyond the schema but not enough to exceed the baseline for a well-typed single parameter.

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?

States a specific verb ('cancel'), resource ('API research job'), scope ('owned'), and the idempotent nature of the operation. An agent can immediately distinguish this from start_filter_research, get_filter_research, and list_filter_research without reading any schema.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions: 'when the user asks to stop it or an agreed research stop condition applies.' It lacks named alternatives or a when-not clause (e.g., how this differs from deleting results), but the context is clear enough to select the tool.

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