gateway_access_request_cancel

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint), so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states 'cancel' without disclosing side effects, reversibility, or impact on approval workflows. The 'pending' constraint is useful but 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without verbosity.

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 mutation nature of the tool and zero annotation coverage, the description lacks essential context about preconditions, side effects, error scenarios, and the meaning of the 'reason' parameter. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing behavioral and semantic details.

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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It implicitly references request_id but never mentions the optional 'reason' parameter, leaving its purpose and usage entirely unclear.

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 action (cancel), the resource (pending access request), and a key constraint (owned by the current user). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like gateway_access_request_create and gateway_admin_access_request_decide, though it could be more explicit about the ownership restriction.

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 that this tool is for the user's own requests, which hints at when to use it versus admin tools, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The ownership constraint is present but not elaborated.

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