krita_cancel_operation

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-read-only, non-destructive), the description adds meaningful behavior: atomic cancellation for queued work, intent-recording for running work, and explicit non-capabilities. This is exactly the kind of context the structured annotations do not convey.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the action, atomicity, and key limitations with no redundant wording. The main purpose is front-loaded before the caveats.

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 simple two-parameter cancel operation without an output schema, the description covers the semantics, idempotency-relevant behavior, and important non-goals. The main omission is defining 'bridge work' and explaining that both parameters are required Krita instance and operation identifiers, but the tool name and sibling context reduce the risk.

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, the prose must carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does. 'Cancel queued bridge work' clarifies that operation_id identifies a bridge operation, but instance_id is never explained and there is no guidance on where to obtain either ID. The parameter names and titles are suggestive, but the description does not fully compensate for the 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?

The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Cancel queued bridge work atomically') and immediately defines the scope: it cancels queued bridge work, not running work or backend diffusion jobs. This distinguishes it from the broader Krita sibling set, especially krita_get_operation and diffusion-related tools.

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 first sentence states the intended use (cancel queued bridge work), and the second gives explicit negative conditions: running work only records intent, and it cannot stop Krita or cancel a submitted AI Diffusion backend job. It does not name an alternative tool, but the exclusions are clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool will not help.

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