Cancel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds only a prohibition on arbitrary host commands, which is a family-level constraint, and says nothing about what cancellation destroys, whether an in-flight job is killed mid-operation, or what state remains 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?

It is short and front-loads the tool name, but the second clause is about the rm_git family rather than this operation, so a portion of the very limited text is spent on information that does not help select or invoke this tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the tool is destructive and shares an 11-parameter schema with the rest of the rm_git family with zero required parameters. The description gives an agent no way to know which parameters are relevant to cancelling, leaving a substantial gap for a destructive operation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning at all — notably it never ties the tool to job_id, which the schema marks as required for cancel — so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 essentially restates the name and title ('Cancel (rm_git)') without saying what is being cancelled or what effect it has. The only elaboration, 'Typed bulk Git operations; arbitrary host commands are prohibited,' describes the rm_git family generally rather than this tool, so an agent gets no real differentiation from siblings like rm_git_status or rm_git_raw.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. The description never mentions that this is for cancelling a background rm_git job, nor does it point to how to obtain the job id or what alternatives exist (e.g., polling status instead). Only the schema's job_id text hints at the use case.

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