pdg_cancel

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Cancel a running PDG cook,' but does not explain side effects, whether it is destructive, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens to the cook (e.g., partial results, node state). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple operation and avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given there are no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with zero schema description, the description alone is not complete enough. It lacks context about what a PDG cook is, what the path parameter should be, and what the result of cancellation is. An agent would likely need to consult other tools or documentation to use this correctly.

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 required parameter 'path' with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not clarify what 'path' refers to (e.g., a PDG node path, a cook ID, or a file path). It only implies the target is a running PDG cook, but this is insufficient for an agent to know exactly what value to pass.

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 the resource ('a running PDG cook'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like pdg_cook (which starts a cook) and pdg_status (which shows status). Even though it is brief, the purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as pdg_cook, pdg_status, or pdg_dirty. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or mention of related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the name and description.

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