cancel_split_plan

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'cancel' but omits details on side effects, reversibility, or what happens to the plan after cancellation. For a mutating tool, this is insufficient.

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 short and front-loaded with the key action. The args block is efficient but the overall content is notably brief, leaving some questions unanswered without being verbose.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should more fully explain the tool's behavior. It does not address what 'cancel' entails (e.g., deletion, status change, impact on related data), leaving the agent uncertain about the outcome.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds value by explaining 'plan_id' as 'The plan ID to cancel.' However, it provides minimal additional context beyond the parameter's purpose.

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 verb 'Cancel' and resource 'split plan', specifying it applies to pending/in-progress parts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'split_plan_status' (status check) or 'plan_assembly_split' (creation).

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 implies usage when a split plan is pending/in-progress and needs cancellation, but lacks explicit context on when to use this over other cancel tools (e.g., cancel_job, cancel_print). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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