Cancel console viewing

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it only closes managed viewing resources and never releases or destroys the VM, providing a clear boundary for side effects. It doesn't discuss failure states or prerequisites, but the added scoping is valuable.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loads the core action, and every sentence adds value—first the operation, then the boundary. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter cancel operation, the description covers the action's effect and its non-destructive boundary. It does not explain return values or error conditions, but given this is a small tool with no output schema, that omission is minor and unlikely to prevent correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions both `console_id` and `attempt_id` as the identifiers of the attempt, but provides no additional detail about their relationship, format, or roles beyond the parameter names and regex patterns in the schema. This is minimal but adequate for a simple cancellation action.

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 action ('Cancel an open or uncertain console-viewing attempt') and clearly identifies the resource and scope ('Closes managed viewing resources only; it never releases or destroys the VM'). It distinguishes itself from related siblings like relay_console_open and relay_release by framing what it does and does not affect.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool (canceling an open or uncertain console-viewing attempt) and an explicit exclusion ('never releases or destroys the VM'), which helps an agent decide when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools that may be considered, leaving some inference to the agent.

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