cancel_study_attempt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses an irreversible cost consequence — consumed study reservations are not refunded — and the word 'Request' hints at initiation rather than guaranteed completion, but it says nothing about permissions, idempotency, asynchronous behavior, or the state of the attempt afterward.

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 tight sentence with the irreversible cost warning front-loaded after the action statement. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness leaves gaps that are not merely conciseness but missing guidance.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin: it omits when to use it versus sibling cancellation tools, what the two required IDs represent, and what the caller should expect beyond the refund warning. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but other gaps remain.

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 both required parameters (study_id and attempt_id) are documented only by self-descriptive names. The description adds no meaning about which study or attempt to pass, whether IDs must be active, or what happens if the attempt is already cancelled.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: requesting cancellation of a study attempt, which is a recognizable mutation. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like cancel_study_final or cancel_run, and the phrase 'candidate cancellation' is slightly ambiguous about whether the candidate or the attempt is the target.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as cancel_study_final, cancel_run, or finalize_study. The agent must infer whether this is the correct cancellation path from the name alone.

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