Chat Cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral detail: the default for conversation_id, the ordering of the cancel (local stream abandoned before the Google session), and rejection of unknown or cross-notebook task IDs. It doesn't say whether cancellation is idempotent or what an already-finished generation yields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, then defaults and the task_id workflow follow in tight order. The sentence about abandoning the local stream is slightly dense but still earns its place by explaining cancellation ordering.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the mutation's effect and its error case. It is nearly complete for a 3-param, no-annotation tool; only the notebook identifier's expected form is unaddressed.

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 compensate, and it does: conversation_id defaults to the notebook's most-recent session and task_id must come from chat_start and pertain to the same notebook. The 'notebook' parameter's format is not elaborated, leaving one gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Stop a notebook's active chat generation.' The scope (notebook's active chat generation) clearly separates it from siblings like research_cancel and chat_start, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the condition for using the optional task_id ('when cancelling a detached ask') and routes the agent to chat_start as the source of that value. It does not explicitly name an alternative cancellation tool or state when cancellation is unnecessary, so it stops short of a full when/when-not pair.

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