cancel_ext_check_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond it. It never says what cancelling does to in-flight checks, whether the collection's status becomes terminal, or whether the operation can be reversed — meaningful gaps for a state-changing cancel.

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 same phrase appears twice and the bracketed HTTP route is embedded in prose, so the text is redundant rather than efficient. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the tool name, and no sentence earns extra place by conveying new 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 mutating, non-idempotent cancel operation with no output schema, the description omits the essential semantics: what state the collection ends in, what happens to checks inside it, and whether a re-cancel is an error. Annotations and schema cover the request shape but not the effect.

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 100%: checkCollectionId, body.status (enum restricted to 'cancelled') and x-trace-id are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 text restates the tool name and annotation title verbatim ('Cancel check collection') twice, adding only the raw HTTP path. It gives no indication of what a 'check collection' is or how cancelling a collection differs from cancelling a single check, despite siblings like cancel_ext_check, start_ext_check_collection and get_ext_check_collection.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though cancel_ext_check is an obvious adjacent choice the agent must discriminate against. The agent is left to infer the relationship purely from the tool name.

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