trmnl_auth_cancel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by clarifying that it won't revoke existing grants, quietly confirming scope. It still doesn't explain side effects on the pending attempt itself, so 4 not 5.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the scope caveat. Every sentence adds distinct meaning with no waste.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and no output schema is needed, so the description is mostly adequate. The unresolved identity of the 'id' parameter leaves a meaningful gap for a single-required-arg tool.

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?

There is one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent is left to guess whether 'id' is a login-attempt id, a session id, or something else, and no format guidance is given beyond the pattern.

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 ('Stop a pending local browser login'), which is concrete enough to distinguish it from trmnl_auth_start and trmnl_auth_status. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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 phrase 'pending local browser login' clearly conveys when to use it, and 'Does not revoke existing TRMNL grants' sets a scope boundary that tells the agent this is not for logging out. No explicit named alternative, so not a 5.

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