cancel_response

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't say whether cancellation is idempotent, whether the response_id becomes invalid afterward, whether partial output is retained, what error surfaces for an unknown or completed id, or what permissions are needed — all material for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key constraint (still running) is placed where it will be read. It is efficient rather than padded, though the brevity borders on under-specification.

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 needn't be explained, but for a state-changing cancel operation with no annotations the description should cover post-cancellation state and failure modes. As written, an agent knows what the tool intends but not what to expect from it.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as the response_id returned by ask_marvin. The description adds no extra meaning about the identifier beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ("Stop") applied to a specific resource ("an answer that is still running"), which an agent can distinguish from the read-oriented siblings like get_response and ask_marvin. It stops short of naming the response_id linkage explicitly, but the intent is unmistakable.

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 "still running" implies the precondition for calling it, so usage is inferable. However, no guidance is given on what to do if the response already finished, whether the call is safe to repeat, or which sibling to use instead to merely read status.

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