fleet_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: the first call returns proposed actions and runs nothing, and run_actions with the returned digest executes exactly those. That is real transparency. It still omits what 'graceful' cancellation does, whether cancelled prints can be resumed, and how the listed boilerplate actions ('upload, start, pause, resume, set a speed preset') relate to a cancel operation.

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?

A large share of the text is Business-tier upsell and a tracking URL ('Business adds team review... Upgrade: https://kiln3d.com/pricing?src=agent&tool=fleet_cancel'), which is marketing noise rather than operational guidance. The actually useful two-phase protocol is buried after the advertising.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the interaction protocol but leaves destructive scope ambiguous: it never says whether whole-fleet cancellation is reversible, what preserves_temperatures does, or how printer_names narrows the fleet.

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 coverage is 67%. The description usefully explains run_actions as the actions_digest returned by the first call, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Default: ""'. But printer_names and preserve_temperatures are documented nowhere, leaving their semantics (subset targeting, temperature retention) a mystery.

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 an explicit scope (prints across the whole fleet), which distinguishes it from the sibling cancel_print that targets one printer. However 'gracefully' is never defined, and no sibling (fleet_pause, fleet_resume) is named for contrast.

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 tier prerequisite ('Requires Kiln Business') is a useful gate, and the two-phase call flow is described. But there is no when-to-use / when-not guidance relative to fleet_pause, fleet_resume, cancel_print, or cancel_queued_job, so the agent must infer selection.

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