cancel_interaction

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

Annotations include idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true. The description adds the context that the interaction is 'in-progress', which helps the agent understand the state, but does not disclose side effects like state changes or auth requirements. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose and usage), but it is not verbose.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description adequately covers the core purpose. However, given the sibling tool 'delete_interaction', additional context on when to cancel versus delete would improve completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single required parameter 'interaction_id'. The description does not explain what this parameter represents or how to obtain it, failing to add meaning beyond the schema's type and title.

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 states the verb 'cancel' and the resource 'interaction', with an example clarifying 'in-progress (e.g. background) interaction'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'delete_interaction', which removes an interaction rather than stopping one in progress.

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?

The description implies usage when an interaction is in-progress, but lacks explicit when-to-use versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it compare with sibling tools like 'delete_interaction' or 'get_interaction_status'.

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