fetch_fail

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the core action (fail the request) but does not mention side effects, irreversibility, errors if the request isn't paused, or whether the request is aborted on the network level. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient context.

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 a single, compact sentence that conveys the essential action without any redundant words or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple with fully documented parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain return values (no output schema). However, it lacks guidance on when the request is paused and how to obtain the requestId, and it doesn't clarify the outcome relative to sibling tools. Given the absence of annotations, the description feels slightly thin for safe usage.

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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Request ID from paused request' and the error reason enum). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 description 'Fail a paused request with an error' uses a specific verb ('fail') and resource ('paused request'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like fetch_continue and fetch_fulfill. The meaning is immediately apparent with no ambiguity.

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?

The description implies usage—when you want to fail a paused request—but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like fetch_fulfill or fetch_continue. No exclusions or prerequisites beyond 'paused request' are mentioned.

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