cancel_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions cancellation and the return shape, but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether in-flight requests are aborted, whether the session is permanently deleted or recoverable), authentication requirements, or idempotency. For a mutating action without annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and immediately states the return value. There is no wasted text, and it is appropriately sized for a simple cancellation tool.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the essential action and return format. It is minimally sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool, but lacks contextual details like side effects or error handling. For a mutation tool, this is adequate but not rich; a 3 reflects the missing behavioral context without over-penalizing given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the parameter 'session_id' is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter (e.g., format, constraints, or how to obtain it). Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when schema covers the parameter, and the description does not need to repeat it.

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 '取消' (cancel) and a clear resource '标注会话' (annotation session). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'annotate_document' and 'wait_for_annotations', though it does not explicitly name an alternative like the highest-quality examples. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the action and return value. It implies usage for canceling a session, but provides no exclusion criteria, prerequisites, or references to related tools like 'wait_for_annotations' or 'preview_edits'.

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