export_cancel

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that the same API verb deletes a finished export's artifact irreversibly, that the status check is non-atomic, and that a race can cause deletion instead of cancellation. This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance an agent needs and would not know from annotations alone.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, operational behavior, and the race-condition warning. The most important scoping information is front-loaded, and the destructive caveat is placed prominently. No filler or repetition.

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 destructive action with a race condition, the description fully covers how to identify the target, when cancellation is attempted, what terminal states mean, and the irreversible risk. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because return-value expectations are not necessary for safe invocation here.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the model reference forms and the need for project with slug, but adds no materially new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel an active export job for a model,' immediately distinguishing it from export_create and export_status. It also clarifies the addressing modes and the export id, and further disambiguates the dual cancel-vs-delete behavior. This is a precise, non-tautological purpose statement.

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 clear context: it is for cancelling an export that is still active, and it explicitly says the operation refuses on any terminal status. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as export_status as the way to check status beforehand, so it stops short of full when-to-use-versus-alternatives guidance.

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