qui_cancel_cross_seed_automation

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

The description adds nothing beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not mention what exactly will be cancelled, whether the operation is per-run or global, or any side effects or confirmation requirements. For a destructive operation, more detail is needed.

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 sentence with no redundant phrases. It front-loads the key instruction (call the endpoint) and adds only the necessary parameter routing details. Every word 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?

An output schema exists, so return values are presumably covered. However, the description is minimal: it does not explain what 'cancel' means in this domain, whether the tool targets a specific run or all runs, or when it is appropriate to invoke. It is marginally complete for a simple endpoint wrapper.

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?

The input schema is a generic arguments object with no defined properties, but the description explains how to use it: path variables in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and JSON body in arguments.body. This provides structural guidance that compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 identifies the exact endpoint (POST /cross-seed/run/cancel) but does not explicitly state the domain action (cancelling a cross-seed automation run). The verb 'Call' is generic, and the effect of the operation is only implied by the endpoint path and tool name.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like qui_cancel_cross_seed_search or qui_cancel_directory_scan. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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