取消压缩计划

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real side effects: temporary files are removed and the original image is explicitly left untouched, which answers the main safety question for a cancel tool. It omits failure behavior (e.g. invalid or already-consumed plan_id) and any permission requirements.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, with the clarifying guarantee (original unaffected) placed last. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema cleanup tool the description covers purpose, side effects, and safety. It is only short of explaining where plan_id comes from and what happens on an invalid or expired plan.

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?

There is one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so plan_id is undocumented in the schema. The description implies provenance (it comes from prepare_compression) but never states that plan_id is that identifier, nor its format, so it only partially compensates for the coverage 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 names a specific action pair — discarding the prepare_compression result and cleaning temporary files — so the agent immediately understands this is the abort path of a three-step workflow. It differentiates itself from prepare_compression by naming it, but never names apply_compression, the sibling it actually competes with when a prepared plan is outstanding.

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?

By stating that it discards the output of prepare_compression, the description anchors usage to a clear precondition: you have a prepared plan you no longer want. No explicit when-not or alternative (apply_compression) is offered, so the agent must infer the fork from the sibling list.

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