Cancel Operation

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

Annotations already declare this is non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: cancellation leaves the scene unchanged, and running exports cannot be cancelled through this tool.

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?

Two short sentences, both front-loaded and purposeful. The primary action is stated first, followed immediately by the key exclusion.

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 one-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, safety context, and the main unsupported case. It is nearly complete, though it could explicitly mention that the operation must still be pending.

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%, and the schema already explains operation_id plus retry semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and target: cancel a pending approval, and it explicitly excludes running exports from this tool. This makes the core purpose clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as get_operation or undo_last_change.

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?

It gives a clear usage boundary: use this for pending approvals, but cancel running exports in the native Save dialog instead. It does not mention when to use get_operation first or how this relates to undo_last_change, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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