proofpage_cancel_quote_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: cancellation is graceful — 'an active request may finish' rather than being aborted. It omits the rest of the mutation profile: whether the call is idempotent, what happens if the job already completed or does not exist, what is returned, and any permission requirements.

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 with the effect stated first and the caveat second, no filler. It is arguably over-compressed for a mutation tool, but every sentence carries information and nothing is redundant.

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?

A cancellation (mutation) tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage leaves too much unsaid: the ID's provenance, post-cancel state, error behavior, and return value are all absent. The one behavioral hint present is not enough to make the definition self-sufficient.

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%, so the description must explain job_id, and it does not — it never says whether this is the quote-check job id from proofpage_get_quote_check or a run id from proofpage_get_run, which are distinct concepts among the siblings. The parameter is only inferable from its name.

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 ('Cancel') and a specific resource ('future collection in a quote check'), which separates it from the sibling proofpage_cancel_crawl and from the read-only quote-check tools. The scope word 'future' makes the effect reasonably unambiguous, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 on when to call this versus letting a quote check run, versus proofpage_cancel_crawl, or whether the job must be in a particular state. The second sentence describes a behavior, not a usage condition, so an agent must infer the trigger from the name alone.

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