qui_cancel_directory_scan

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

The annotation already flags destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the HTTP DELETE method, which is consistent. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as idempotency, what happens if the scan is not running, or whether results are deleted. With the annotation covering the safety profile, the description adds minimal extra value but does not contradict.

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 two sentences long, with no filler. The first sentence states the endpoint, the second explains the argument structure. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the essential action.

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 cancellation endpoint with an output schema and a destructive hint, the description is fairly complete. It identifies the HTTP method, resource path, and argument-passing approach. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and does not mention any conditions or side effects beyond the delete action. Given the simplicity of the operation and the presence of annotations, this is adequate.

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 container with no specific parameter details. The description compensates by explaining how to pass path variables, query values, and a JSON body, providing a crucial convention for using the tool. It does not enumerate the specific parameters (e.g., directoryID), but the path template indicates the required variable. This is valuable beyond the schema.

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 API endpoint with the DELETE method and a specific resource path, which maps directly to the tool's name 'cancel_directory_scan'. It implies cancellation of a scan but does not explicitly state 'use this to cancel a running directory scan,' leaving some room for interpretation. Still, it is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'scan_directory'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the scan needing to be in progress, or situations where this tool should be avoided. The description only explains how to construct the request, not the broader usage context.

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