flix_cancel_transfer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose consequences such as whether partial files are deleted, whether the transfer becomes unresumable, or any state requirements beyond 'ongoing'. This is a significant gap for a cancellation operation.

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 entire description is one short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and objective.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides the core purpose. However, it lacks details on side effects or post-conditions, which would make it fully complete. Still adequate for a simple cancel operation.

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 input schema already documents the transferId parameter with 'Transfer ID to cancel' at 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter information, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Cancel' with the resource 'ongoing file transfer', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pause and resume. There is no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implies the tool is used for transfers that are currently in progress (ongoing), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, such as distinguishing from pause for temporary stops.

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