Reports_cancelReport

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool cancels a report and adds the environment note; it does not disclose whether cancellation is irreversible or idempotent, whether the report must be in a cancellable state, what authorization is needed, or what response/error behavior to expect.

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 description is short and has no verbose filler, but it is not front-loaded: the actual purpose sentence appears after the meta label 'Catalog entry' and the environment caveat. 'Catalog entry' reads as label noise rather than actionable guidance.

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 cancel operation with no annotations, no parameter schema, and no output schema, important details are missing: how to specify the report, what a successful cancellation returns, and what side effects or constraints apply. The 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' line adds some context, but the definition remains skeletal.

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?

The input schema is empty except for additionalProperties:true, yet the description says 'the report that you specify,' implying an argument while never naming or formatting it. This leaves an agent unable to construct a correct invocation and does not compensate for the empty schema.

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 core sentence, 'Cancels the report that you specify,' gives a clear verb and resource, and it is distinguishable from the sibling cancelReportSchedule because it targets a report rather than a schedule. However, the description does not name what 'the report' is or how it is identified, and the first two sentences focus on catalog/environment context rather than purpose.

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 about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as Reports_cancelReportSchedule or Reports_cancelFeed. The caveat 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' is environmental context, not selection guidance, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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