cancel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It communicates that the action backs out of an overlay (a state change), but says nothing about consequences such as whether pending selections are discarded or whether the turn/game state is affected. Output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Nothing wasted.

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 zero-parameter action with an output schema, the essentials are present. However, in a game context where cancel competes closely with confirm, proceed, and leave, the description leaves the agent to infer whether cancel aborts a pending decision or merely closes UI.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No misleading or missing parameter information.

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 action (cancel) and its target (the current overlay), which is enough to separate it from siblings like confirm, proceed, and choose. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or describing the overlay concept, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 current overlay" implies a situational precondition, so usage is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit contrast with confirm, proceed, or leave, which are the obvious alternatives an agent would weigh when an overlay is open.

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