cancel_review_request

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

The description adds concurrency semantics with 'using its current version,' indicating optimistic locking via expected_version. This goes beyond the annotations, which already declare destructive and idempotent behavior, providing valuable context for invocation.

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 concise sentence that leads with the action and includes all essential constraints. No extraneous words or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior, state constraints, and concurrency mechanism. It doesn't detail error handling on version mismatch, but the output schema likely covers that. Overall, adequate for correct invocation.

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 schema documents 3 of 4 parameters, but expected_version lacks a description. The description's 'current version' clarifies expected_version's role, and 'open or claimed' gives context for review_request_id. This compensates for the missing schema detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('cancel') and resource ('review request'), and specifies scope ('open or claimed'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like replace_review_request and supersede_review_request.

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 provides clear context by limiting cancellation to open or claimed requests, but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. This is sufficient guidance for selecting the tool when cancellation is intended.

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