system-cancel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that cancellation is 'cooperative' and 'takes effect at the operation's next check', which is critical for understanding the non-immediate nature. It does not mention potential side effects or error cases, but the key behavior is covered.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information without any wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core behavior and source of the id. It lacks details on return values or error conditions, but these are less critical for a cancel-request operation.

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 provides only a title and example for op_id, with 0% description coverage. The tool description adds meaning by stating 'by id from system.operations', telling the agent where to source the id. This compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 clearly states the verb ('Request cooperative cancellation') and the resource ('a queued/running operation'), and specifies the origin of the id ('by id from system.operations'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like system-operations and system-health.

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 explicitly indicates the target state ('queued/running') and references where to find the id ('system.operations'), giving clear context. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for completed operations), but the state restriction implies it.

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