qui_cancel_cross_seed_search

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true signals destructiveness, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It fails to mention that a search run must be active, what gets cancelled, or whether the operation is idempotent. The description essentially restates the endpoint name.

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?

Two sentences concisely cover the endpoint and argument mapping. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The description lacks essential context for a destructive cancel operation: what run ID to pass, when cancellation is appropriate, and what side effects occur. Despite having an output schema, this minimal description leaves the agent guessing about preconditions and the exact parameters needed.

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 schema is an empty free-form object, so the description's breakdown of path variables, query parameters, and request body in arguments is valuable and compensates well. It gives the agent a clear structure for constructing arguments, though it doesn't specify the actual field names or which parameters are required.

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 clearly identifies the endpoint and the cancellation action, distinguishing it from sibling tools that start or list searches. However, it uses 'Call... endpoint' rather than a direct verb like 'Cancels', which is slightly less clear but still understandable.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as qui_cancel_cross_seed_automation or qui_cancel_directory_scan. It only explains how to invoke the endpoint, not the business context or prerequisites.

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