Cancel File Upload

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to re-assert that cancelling is a write. It adds the useful scoping that only pending, pre-approved transfers are eligible. It does not say whether cancellation is reversible, whether in-flight data is discarded, or that a confirmation token is mandatory — gaps that matter for a destructive operation.

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, zero padding, with the eligibility constraint front-loaded ahead of the exclusion. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation this is only partially complete: eligibility and the redirect to the removal tool are covered, but the required confirmation semantics and irreversibility are absent. Adequate to select the tool, insufficient to invoke it confidently.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it explains neither transfer_id (a UUID identifying which upload) nor confirmation (a const 'user_authorized' string). The phrase 'explicitly approved' faintly gestures at the confirmation parameter but never tells the agent it must pass that literal value.

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+resource ('Cancel ... pending upload') and constrains it to an 'explicitly approved' upload, which is meaningfully more precise than the title. It differentiates itself from the file-removal path, though it never names the sibling tool it points at.

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 both a when ('pending upload' that is 'explicitly approved') and a when-not ('Completed campaign files use their removal tool'), which is real routing guidance. The alternative is described obliquely as 'their removal tool' rather than naming remove_campaign_file, leaving a small inference step.

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