cancel_mission

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses immediate cancellation vs pending worker consent, escrow refund, reason importance, status codes (200 vs 202), and reputation impact. Missing some details about escrow handling for pending requests.

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?

Well-structured with paragraphs, front-loading main action, then detailed status behavior, then args. Each sentence adds value, though slightly long but not wasteful.

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?

Covers parameters, behavior per status, return values with status codes, and ethical guidance. Could include more on error handling or edge cases, but overall sufficient for an AI agent.

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 0%, so description compensates by explaining mission_uuid as UUID and reason as optional but strongly recommended for IN_PROGRESS missions, adding ethical context.

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 'Cancel a mission you created.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'approve_mission' and 'escalate_mission'.

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?

It explains when to use the tool by mission status, but does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare with alternatives. The context provided (behaviors for OPEN/CLAIMED vs IN_PROGRESS) guides usage.

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