cancel_standard_work_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that cancellation is likely destructive or irreversible, what happens to follow-ups, what permissions are required, or how state_id and project targeting affect behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It immediately states the preview/cancel capability and the required reason context.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is too sparse for a seven-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and very low schema description coverage. It omits key operational details an agent would need before invoking cancellation safely.

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 only 14%, so the description needs to compensate for seven parameters. It mentions reason and optional follow-ups and implies dry_run via 'preview', but leaves work_item_id, state_id, project_id, and confirm_project_identifier largely unexplained.

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 states a specific action pair, preview or cancel, and a scoped resource, unfinished work. It is clear enough to distinguish from create/start/complete work item tools, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

It implies the tool is for previewing or canceling unfinished work after recording a reason, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explain when to use dry_run versus the actual cancellation, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions.

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