Cancel a group round

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

Annotations declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false, but the description adds substantially more: running seats are cancelled and recorded absent, unstarted serial seats are skipped, already-succeeded answers are kept and committed, and CLI side effects are not undone. That is exactly the 'what gets destroyed and what survives' detail an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcome, then the retention rule, then the caveat about CLI side effects. Nothing is redundant and each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations plus description jointly cover the safety profile and per-seat cancellation semantics. The only real gap is usage guidance relative to wait_round and cancel_agent.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single round_id parameter is never mentioned in the description, so there is no format, source, or lookup guidance to compensate. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory given the tool name, which keeps this from being a 1.

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 precise verb+resource ('Stop a round') and immediately scopes what stopping means at seat level, which clearly separates it from run_round and wait_round. It never names a sibling or the alternative action, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 usage context (you cancel a round that is running) and even sketches what happens to different seat states, but it never states when to prefer this over waiting for a round or cancelling at the agent level. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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