Cancel generation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things beyond that: the pre-submit timing window and the credit-refund side effect, which is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs to weigh before calling a destructive tool.

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 sentence, no filler, with the action front-loaded and the two key constraints (timing, refund) trailing in priority order. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the essentials are present: what it does, when it applies, and the refund consequence. What's missing is the failure/edge behavior (e.g., canceling after submit).

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 schema documents nothing about generationId. The description never clarifies the parameter either, though the name is self-explanatory and the tool takes only one required field, which limits the damage. Baseline 3 for a single obvious identifier.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Cancel a reserved generation') with a scope qualifier ('before provider submit') that makes it unmistakable against generate/list_generations/get_generation. It never names a sibling explicitly, but the action is inherently distinct from every listed neighbor.

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?

'before provider submit' is a real usage condition that tells the agent when this call is valid, which is more than generic context. It stops short of saying what happens if the window has passed or naming where refunds/timing go wrong, and there is no cancel alternative among siblings to redirect to.

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