terminal_cancel_private_input

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=false, but the description explicitly says the tool discards unsubmitted input and that submitted input cannot be retracted. That is a direct conflict about the tool's destructive effect, so this is scored 1 and flagged as an annotation contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the permission condition and then covers effects, preconditions, and post-call inspection. Every sentence adds operational meaning without waste.

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 sensitive cancel/interrupt operation with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, side effects, parameter meaning, and post-interruption inspection. It is complete enough for an agent to call it safely.

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?

There is one parameter and the schema provides no description for it, so the description carries the full burden. It explains exactly when resumeAI should be true: only when the person also authorizes continuing AI work.

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 verb and resource: cancel the current private input. It also clarifies scope by saying it happens without reading or submitting the input, which distinguishes it from terminal_input and related terminal operations.

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 gives strong when-to-use guidance: only when the person explicitly asks. It also conditionally gates resumeAI and advises inspecting state after interruption, though it does not name sibling alternatives.

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