cancel_action

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

Annotations already cover idempotency (idempotentHint: true) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint: false). The description adds the refusal condition but doesn't elaborate on edge cases like cancelling an already-cancelled operation. With annotations handling the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and purpose. No wasted words, and the key condition is stated immediately. It is efficiently structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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 cancel operation with one well-documented parameter, annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, and an output schema present, the description provides enough context. It could explicitly reference confirm_action as the counterpart, but the condition makes the usage clear. Slight room for improvement, but not a gap.

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 fully documents the only parameter (confirmation_id) with a description, and the tool description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (cancel), the target (prepared operation), and the condition (if the user refused). It distinguishes itself from the sibling confirm_action by indicating the opposite action, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a clear context for when to use the tool (when the user refuses a prepared operation). It doesn't explicitly exclude other scenarios or name alternatives, but the condition implicitly differentiates it from confirm_action, giving sufficient guidance for an agent.

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