Cancel PCB Layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'request' and 'active operation' but doesn't clarify whether the cancellation is asynchronous, what happens if no operation is active, or the success/failure response. This is insufficient for a state-changing 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 description is a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and target, making it highly concise and efficient.

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?

Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the description is too terse. It omits critical operational details: where operation_id comes from, whether the tool blocks or returns immediately, and what the outcome looks like. With no annotations or output schema, the description alone is insufficient for reliable use.

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 has one required parameter (operation_id) with 0% description coverage. The description doesn't mention this parameter or explain how to obtain it, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from context. This is a significant 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('request cancellation') and its target ('an active make_pcb_layout operation'), distinguishing it from sibling cancellation tools like cancel_auto_route. The verb is specific and the resource is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context by specifying it applies to an active make_pcb_layout operation, which guides when to invoke it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, though the narrow scope makes this less critical.

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