cancel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Cancel' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this is destructive, reversible, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what side effects occur. The return statement is vague ('result of the cancellation attempt') without detailing success/failure formats or error conditions.

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 appropriately brief and well-structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and returns. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the return statement could be more specific. The formatting with clear headings enhances readability without unnecessary 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'queued request' means in this context, what cancellation entails (immediate termination, graceful shutdown, etc.), or what the return value contains. The agent lacks sufficient information to understand the full consequences of using this tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description adds crucial semantic context by explaining that 'url' should be 'The cancel_url from a queued request'. This clarifies the parameter's purpose and source beyond what the bare schema provides, though it doesn't specify format constraints or validation rules.

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 ('a queued request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'status' or 'result' that might also interact with queued requests, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that a request must be queued first), when cancellation is appropriate, or what happens if used incorrectly. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

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