cancel_ext_remedy

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

Annotations declare this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotent, open-world operation, but the description adds nothing beyond the HTTP path. It does not say that cancelling is effectively final, what happens to in-flight remediation steps, or that the only permitted transition is to status 'cancelled'.

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?

It is short, but 'Cancel remedy' is printed twice (once before and once after the endpoint), which is pure redundancy. Front-loaded verb is fine, but the payload carries no extra 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 state-changing cancellation endpoint with no output schema, an agent needs to know preconditions (remedy must be running/pending) and post-effects. Neither is provided, leaving the definition thin.

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 coverage is 100% – remedyId, the x-trace-id header, and the body.status enum are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, so 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 description states the verb and resource ('Cancel remedy') and gives the endpoint path, so the basic action is identifiable. But it merely restates the name/title twice and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings such as get_ext_remedy, list_ext_remedies, start_ext_remedy, or cancel_ext_check.

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 guidance on when to cancel a remedy versus retrieving it or starting a new one, no prerequisites, and no mention of which remedy states can be cancelled. The agent is left to infer this from the sibling names.

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