Cancel Transcription

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'If any' usefully discloses that the call is a no-op when nothing is running, but it says nothing about what happens to partial results, whether cancellation is immediate, or any auth requirements. Output schema covers the return value, softening the gap.

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 single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter cancel tool with an output schema documenting the response, the description covers the essential purpose and the idle no-op case. Only minor behavioral detail about the fate of an in-flight transcription is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Cancel') plus resource ('the currently running transcription'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It is implicitly distinct from sibling transcribe_audio, but the description never names or contrasts with any sibling, keeping it short of a 5.

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 'if any' implies the tool is safe to call whenever a transcription might be running, which is a usable invocation cue. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings like transcribe_audio or start_watch, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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