Cancel Acceptance

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false but not idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: queued runs are removed from resource queue, running managed validation receives abort signal with process tree termination. It clearly discloses the destructive termination behavior but doesn't address reversibility or partial-cancellation states.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. Every clause adds meaningful behavioral information about the two run states (queued vs running). Excellent signal density.

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?

Output schema exists, schema coverage is 100%, and 6 params are documented. The description covers the key mutable behavior (queue removal, abort signal, process tree termination) for a destructive operation. The only gap is it doesn't clarify what the output/return value contains or whether a partial cancel can occur, but the rich schema + annotations make this reasonably complete.

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%, so all 6 parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides (it doesn't explain the source of owner_token or fencing_token, though the schema references run_acceptance/acceptance_status). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting for all parameters.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Cancel one persisted acceptance run') and distinguishes behaviors for queued vs running runs. It clearly differs from siblings like run_acceptance, acceptance_status, and read_acceptance_result.

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 explains what cancellation does mechanically (removes from queue, sends abort signal) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor exclusions. It does note the openWorldHint=true in annotations implying side effects outside this workspace, but the description doesn't address when cancelling is appropriate or alternatives.

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