cancel_gtt_rule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent is aware of the destructive nature. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, reversibility, or required permissions, but it does not contradict the annotations. With annotations covering the safety profile, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentence of eight words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and there is no fluff or redundant phrasing.

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 destructive action with full schema coverage and a destructiveHint annotation, the description is adequate. It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward. A slight gap is the lack of context about what happens after cancellation or whether any prerequisites exist, but this is not essential for a cancel operation.

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 (id, symboltoken, exchange) have descriptions in the schema, and schema coverage is 100%. The description's reference to 'by ID' is redundant with the schema's 'GTT rule ID to cancel'. The schema handles the parameter semantics, so the description adds no extra value.

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 uses the specific verb 'Cancel' with the resource 'existing GTT rule' and the identifier 'by ID', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_gtt_rule, modify_gtt_rule, and get_gtt_rule_details. It is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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?

No usage guidance is provided beyond the action statement. It does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as modify_gtt_rule, nor does it mention prerequisites like first retrieving the GTT ID or listing existing rules. This matches the 'Update shared drive settings' example which scored 2 for the same reason.

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