cancel_system_trace

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

With no annotations, the description does useful work by disclosing the destruction scope: partial files are discarded while completed artifacts are retained. It still omits whether cancellation is reversible, what permissions or ownership checks are required, and what happens if the trace already ended.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the data consequence, with no wasted words. It could be slightly fuller without losing efficiency.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most important consequence (partial files discarded) but leaves the traceId meaning, ownership requirement, and relationship to stop_system_trace unexplained.

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 single parameter traceId has zero schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all. The agent gets no guidance on where the trace ID comes from or what the 'owned' check means for that ID.

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 verb ('Stop') and an effect ('discard partial files'), but 'owned capture' is vague and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling stop_system_trace or explains how canceling differs from stopping. An agent reading both names would not know which to pick.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no preconditions, and no pointer to alternatives such as stop_system_trace. The only usage signal is the implicit 'owned' qualifier, which is never defined.

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