Abort service file upload

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

Goes far beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false): it discloses the required grants (files:manage on a FULL-access key, vm:files:write for the hosted connector), refuses execution-equivalent targets with a named error code, enumerates availability reasons per platform, and states the 423 response for 2FA-locked servers. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs for a mutation tool.

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 core action and its non-destructive-to-target caveat are front-loaded, followed by permission and availability constraints. It is dense with error codes but each clause carries actionable information; only minor tightening is possible.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description fully covers permissions, scope limits, platform availability, refusal behavior, and relevant HTTP errors. An agent can call this correctly without further inference.

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 coverage is only 50% (orderNo is described, uploadId is not). The description implies uploadId targets 'one open upload' and that the staging file is removed, but adds no format or identifier semantics for either parameter, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Abort one open upload and remove its staging file') and immediately scopes the effect ('the target file is not touched'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like upload_service_file, list_service_file_uploads, and delete_service_files.

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 a clear when-to-use condition ('Only for an upload the user no longer needs'), which frames it against continuing an upload. It does not name an explicit alternative or exclusion tool, but the intent constraint is unambiguous.

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