cancel_motion

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does explain the main effect—canceling and holding the last commanded position—which is useful. However, it does not disclose reversibility, error behavior, or consequences for already-completed jobs, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 sentence that states the core purpose and key behavior without filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 cancel operation with no annotations and three undocumented parameters, this description is incomplete. It names the core behavior but lacks guidance on optional parameters, edge cases, and how it differs from related cancel tools. An agent could invoke it with only job_id, but would have limited understanding of command_id, idempotency_key, or failure modes.

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 no descriptions for any parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain command_id or idempotency_key at all, and only indirectly identifies job_id as the motion job identifier. It adds essentially no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's field names.

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 specific action: cancel a running motion job. It also adds a meaningful behavioral detail—holding the last commanded position—which distinguishes it from the generic cancel_job and cancel_sdg_job siblings.

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 the tool is for motion jobs in a running state, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer cancel_motion over the sibling cancel_job, nor what to do if the job is not running. There are no alternatives or exclusion conditions mentioned.

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