transcribe_cancel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explains idempotency, the balance-release side effect, the 409 behavior for terminal jobs, and the API key requirement. These are all meaningful behavioral facts beyond what the schema exposes.

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?

Four short sentences, each adding a distinct fact: operation, side-effect, idempotency, failure behavior, and required auth. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter operation, the description covers what happens on success, a key error condition, and the auth requirement. It doesn't describe the success response payload, but with no output schema, this is a minor gap and none of the essential invocation details have a hole.

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 single parameter transcription_id is already fully described in the schema as a UUID, so description-level add-on is unnecessary. The description does not add further semantic guidance, which is fine given 100% schema coverage and one parameter.

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 action, 'Cancel an in-flight Scriptivox transcription', and the resource state it applies to. It also adds the effect of releasing reserved balance, which differentiates it from terminal/cleanup operations like transcribe_delete.

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 through 'in-flight' and notes that 'already-terminal jobs' return 409 CONFLICT. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, such as checking status before canceling or using transcribe_delete for completed jobs, so the guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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