Cancel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so an agent knows cancelling has side effects and is repeatable. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not state that cancellation is irreversible, what happens to in-flight work, or whether partial results are discarded, which are the questions an agent actually has for a destructive lifecycle call.

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 the second sentence does no work — it is a taxonomy label rather than an actionable statement, and the only informative token ("Cancel") is diluted by it. Length is not the problem; the filler is.

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?

This is a destructive, open-world lifecycle mutation with nested details, an output schema, and four optional-defaulted parameters. For that complexity, the description omits the target selection, the effect of cancellation, and how it relates to the other tm_operation_* tools.

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 all four parameters are documented in the schema (notably operation_id for get_progress/cancel/get_metrics). The description adds no extra meaning, such as which parameter actually selects the operation to cancel, 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 fragment "Cancel (tm_operations)" names a verb and the resource family, so an agent can guess it terminates an operation. But the second sentence, "Operation lifecycle and session management," is a category label that could describe start, get_progress, or get_metrics equally, so it does not distinguish this tool from its closest siblings.

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 versus when to check progress (tm_operation_get_progress) or start a new operation (tm_operation_start). No prerequisites, no mention that an operation_id must identify the target, and nothing about what happens to already-completed steps.

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