imapsync_cancel

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly indicates a mutating cancel action but does not disclose side effects, irreversibility, or what happens to partial migration data. The 'confirm: Required' note is ambiguous and does not clarify what confirmation value is expected.

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 short and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence and arguments listed compactly. The only structural issue is the misleading 'confirm: Required' fragment, but overall the format is efficient.

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?

The output schema presumably describes return shape, so that gap is covered. For a cancel tool with no annotations and no schema parameter documentation, the description should clarify the confirm flag and the consequences of cancellation. It does not, and the contradiction between 'confirm: Required' and the schema's required/default leaves the agent without enough context to call the tool confidently.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must document both parameters. It usefully explains migration_id comes from imapsync_migrations, but confirm is only said to be 'Required' without saying what value or meaning, and the schema marks confirm optional with default false, creating confusion.

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 the exact action ('Cancel') and the target resource ('running IMAP migration'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like imapsync_migrations, imapsync_import, and imapsync_export.

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 implies when to use the tool by restricting cancellation to running migrations and points the agent to imapsync_migrations as the source for migration_id. However, it does not explicitly compare alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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