cancel_evaluation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Cancel', which implies mutation, but does not specify if the action is irreversible, any side effects, or what happens to the evaluation's data and associated resources.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the core function.

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?

For a simple cancel action with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information about error conditions, typical use cases, or confirmation of state change, which would be useful 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?

The input schema already provides a description for the single parameter 'evaluation_id' ('Evaluation ID to cancel'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action 'Cancel' and the resource 'evaluation', and specifies the applicable states 'running or queued', which prevents misuse on completed evaluations. Although a sibling tool 'cancel_job' exists, the resource differentiation is clear from the tool name itself.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cancel_job' or 'delete_evaluation'. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as checking the evaluation status first, or that cancellation may not be possible beyond a certain point.

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