Cancel design review

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

Beyond the annotations declaring destructiveness and idempotency, the description discloses best-effort semantics, the terminal-job no-op behavior, and the fact that no customer systems are edited and no review units are consumed. These are material consequences for the agent and are genuinely additive to the structured hints.

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, nothing wasted. The core action is front-loaded, and the secondary constraints are compactly chained. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter cancellation tool with an output schema and strong annotations, it captures the essential state constraints, best-effort nature, and safety characteristics. A small mention of confirming the result via design_review_get would have made it fully rounded, but it is not needed to call the tool correctly.

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 0% and the description is silent on both job_id and reason. An agent might infer job_id from the tool name, but the description itself offers no meaning for reason, its optionality, or its use.

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?

Says what it does with a specific verb ('Request best-effort cancellation'), identifies the exact resource (a queued or running review job), and carves out terminal jobs. The backoff semantics and no-edit behavior distinguish it clearly from design_review, design_review_get, and design_review_panel_action.

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?

Provides clear operational context: applicable to queued/running jobs, best-effort, and no-op for terminal jobs. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say 'check design_review_get to confirm a terminal state,' so it stops just short of full when-to-use routing.

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