cancel_split_plan

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine context by limiting cancellation to pending/in-progress parts, implying completed parts survive, but it does not say whether cancellation is reversible, what happens to already-printed plates, or what errors occur for an unknown plan_id.

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 operative sentence is front-loaded and wastes nothing. The trailing 'Args:' block is a redundant restatement of the schema, but it is brief and does not bury the key information.

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 destructive tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete: it omits the state the plan is left in, whether jobs already printing are stopped, and what the caller receives on success. Annotations cover the destructiveness, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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% for the single required parameter, and the description merely restates the schema text ('The plan ID to cancel') without adding format, sourcing, or lookup guidance. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (cancel) and resource (split plan) plus the scope of what is cancelled (pending/in-progress parts). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like split_plan_status or plan_assembly_split, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of checking split_plan_status first, and no stated alternative for merely inspecting or completing a plan. The only implicit cue is the phrase 'pending/in-progress parts', which hints at the applicable situation but leaves the preconditions and alternatives to inference.

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