Cancel Crave Up authentication

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

Annotations already convey idempotency, non-destructiveness, and the mutation nature. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying that the cancellation also closes the local callback, which goes beyond the structured metadata. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 filler. Every phrase earns its place: the action, the target resource, and the local side effect are all stated efficiently.

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 zero parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could mention the relationship to start_crave_auth or complete_crave_auth more explicitly, but the sibling names and the term 'pending' supply enough context.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the description bears no burden for parameter documentation. The schema fully covers the parameter surface, and the description accurately focuses on the tool's action instead.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and names the resource ('pending browser authentication flow') and the side effect ('close its local callback'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like start_crave_auth and complete_crave_auth, which handle initiation and completion rather than cancellation.

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 phrase 'pending browser authentication flow' gives clear context for when this tool should be used. It does not explicitly list excluded cases or name siblings as alternatives, but the pending-flow framing is enough to guide an agent toward the correct lifecycle stage.

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