workflow_cancel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by calling the cancellation 'cooperative' and warning that 'an in-flight Discord effect may still require outcome review,' which signals that the operation may not be immediate or fully clean.

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 two tight sentences with bold labels for Purpose and Returns. It is front-loaded with the core action and adds only the most relevant caveat, with no wasted text.

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 a mutation with a nested input object and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the cooperative-cancellation behavior and the outcome-review caveat, and annotations cover safety properties. However, it omits usage routing among workflow siblings and does not compensate for the 0% parameter description coverage.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'exact profile and target,' which loosely maps to the target object, but it does not explain the required workflow id, the required profile_id, or the optional bot_id, guild_id, and channel_id fields. The parameter semantics gap is substantial.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Request cooperative cancellation of a durable workflow.' It also scopes the operation to 'the exact profile and target,' which helps distinguish it from siblings like workflow_start, workflow_status, and workflow_resume. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling for contrast.

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 when to use it by saying it requests cancellation, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no comparison to workflow_status (to check state first) or workflow_resume. The agent must infer the usage context from the tool name and purpose.

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