cancel_software_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful trait 'auto-wakes if asleep', which tells the agent the tool may wake the vehicle. However, it does not mention potential irreversibility, permission requirements, or error scenarios, leaving some gaps.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and appends a valuable behavioral note. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 cancellation tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential action and a key behavior. It does not mention edge cases or reference the scheduling tool, but given the tool's low complexity and rich schema, it is largely 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?

All three parameters (vin, max_attempts, wait_for_completion) are fully described in the schema, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning to them, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Cancels') and the specific resource ('a scheduled software update'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool schedule_software_update which performs the opposite action. This is a specific verb+resource pairing that leaves no ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool's purpose—cancel a scheduled update—but the description does not explicitly say when to use it or mention alternatives. It does not address conditions like whether an update must be scheduled or what happens if none exists, so guidance is limited.

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