daz_cancel_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses cancellation behavior (immediate for queued, killRender for running, potential delay), error cases, and the return format. This is comprehensive and transparent.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence summary followed by clear bullet points for behavior, args, returns, and errors. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's single parameter and straightforward operation, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, behavior nuances, input specification, output format, and error handling. It is fully complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 provides only type 'string' for request_id with zero description coverage. The tool's description adds critical context: 'Request ID returned by an async submission tool,' which is essential for correct usage. Thus, it adds significant meaning 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 states the tool's purpose: cancel a queued or running async request. It uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('async request'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like status or result retrieval.

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 explains when to use the tool (for queued or running requests) and outlines behavioral differences (immediate vs. killRender signal). It also notes error conditions (already finished or not found). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, so it loses a point.

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