cancel_async_operation

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses idempotent behavior for already-terminal operations, a 404 for nonexistent or cross-tenant operationIds, and a dryRun mode that performs validation without modifying state. This is strong behavioral context that helps an agent predict side effects.

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 cancellation behavior, idempotence, 404 condition, and dryRun guidance are concise and useful. The first sentence about managing reports and getting JSON data is unrelated boilerplate that does not earn its place and adds confusion.

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?

The description covers important behavioral details and error conditions, which is good for a destructive async-cancellation tool. However, it omits explanation of the required Idempotency-Key, does not describe the response format, and does not mention the customerContext scoping rule that the schema only partially covers.

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 description adds meaning for dryRun (validate without state changes) and operationId (the operation to cancel), but it does not explain the required Idempotency-Key parameter at all. With schema coverage at only 25%, this leaves a key parameter under-documented; customerContext is described only in the schema.

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 core sentence 'Cancels a pending or running async report operation' clearly identifies a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling operations like get_async_operation or get_async_operation_results. However, the opening sentence about managing reports and getting JSON data is generic and could mislead an agent about what this tool actually does.

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 makes it clear this tool is for canceling pending or running async operations, and mentions dryRun for validation. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as get_async_operation or get_async_operation_results, nor does it state when not to use it.

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