cancel_area_analysis_task

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that cancellation is logical (not physical), that a running provider call keeps its execution slot, that late results are discarded rather than published, and that terminal states are unchanged by re-invocation. That is exactly the non-obvious behavior an agent needs before invoking a mutation.

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?

Labeled lines (Use when / Do not use when / Requires / Returns / Follow-up) make it skimmable and front-load the core action. It is somewhat longer than strictly necessary, with mild redundancy between the opening sentence and the Returns line.

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 mutation with an output schema, it covers provenance, idempotency, side effects, and the confirmation workflow. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely and correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it specifies that task_id comes from submit_area_analysis and must be from the same server runtime, which is a real constraint the schema lacks. It does not state the format or what happens with a stale/invalid id, so it falls short of full compensation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('logically cancel queued/running area work and discard its late results') and contrasts it with neighboring operations such as deleting cached data. An agent can distinguish it from get_area_analysis_task or submit_area_analysis without reading either schema.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' clauses plus a named alternative domain ('another domain's operation'), and names the prerequisite tool (submit_area_analysis) and the confirmation follow-up (get_area_analysis_task). Routing is fully determined.

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