cancel_login

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

Annotations declare non-readonly, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is partly covered; the description adds real value by clarifying the narrow blast radius — credentials survive and paid tasks are untouched. It still doesn't state what happens to the login_id afterward or the response shape.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action and the trigger front-loaded, followed by the exclusion list. No filler, every clause carries 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?

Boundary conditions and trigger are well covered, but for a tool whose only argument is an undocumented UUID and which has no output schema, the description leaves the caller guessing how to obtain or format login_id. Adequate, not complete.

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?

One required parameter (login_id, a UUID) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains it. The corpus of the description implies the id comes from start_login, but an agent must infer this rather than read it, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Cancel the current start_login attempt') that names the sibling tool it operates on, so an agent can immediately distinguish it from start_login and wait_for_login. The negation clause further pins its boundaries.

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?

Explicit trigger condition ('only when the user asks to cancel or stop') plus four explicit exclusions (does not remove saved credentials, undo completed login, log out the website, or cancel paid tasks). This is exactly the when/when-not guidance the dimension asks for.

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