vyntryx_cancel_scan

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a scoped, repeatable write. The description contributes the ownership constraint and the running-state precondition, but says nothing about whether partial findings are discarded, whether cancellation is immediate, or what the resulting scan state becomes — meaningful gaps for a destructive 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource lead. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, but every word earns its place.

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, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still, for a destructive operation the definition omits how to obtain the session id, what state the scan ends in, and whether partial results survive — gaps an agent must resolve by trial.

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 0% for the single required parameter, and the description never mentions session_id or where the agent obtains it (presumably from vyntryx_scan_source_upload or vyntryx_scan_source_git). With only one parameter this is a small surface, but the description does nothing to compensate for the undocumented 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Cancel a running scan") plus an ownership qualifier ("that you started"), which separates it from the scan-creation siblings. It never names an alternative such as vyntryx_scan_status, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"running scan that you started" implies both the state precondition and the ownership/auth scope, which is more than nothing. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., what to do about completed or failed scans) and no sibling is named as an alternative path.

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