export_cancel

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

Goes well beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing the non-atomic check-then-act race, the resulting irreversible artifact deletion, and the dual semantics of the same API verb. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the action and then layers the status-check and race-condition caveats in two dense but purposeful sentences. Every sentence carries information; slightly long clauses make it marginally less scannable than ideal.

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?

With no output schema and full-schema parameter docs, the description supplies the missing behavioral surface — conditional cancellation, refusal on terminal status, and irreversible deletion risk. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is absent.

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 100% and each parameter is documented in the schema (model ref forms, project required for slug, export id). The description restates the ref forms but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Cancel an active export job for a model') and enumerates the three accepted model-reference forms, which cleanly separates it from sibling export_create and export_status. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the operating condition precisely: it checks status and cancels only while active, refuses on terminal status, and warns that a finished export is deleted instead. It does not name sibling tools (e.g. export_status) as the way to pre-check, so routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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