cancel_top_cook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it does not say whether cancellation is destructive/irreversible, whether in-progress work items are discarded, what happens if nothing is cooking, or whether it can be resumed. Only the bare operation is stated.

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 core sentence is short and front-loaded. The trailing 'Args:' block adds some noise, particularly the 'ctx: MCP context' entry, which is not even a declared schema parameter.

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 tool is simple (one required param, no output schema, no nested objects), so a short description is reasonable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent still lacks information about side effects, post-cancel state, and error behavior.

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; it does partially by clarifying that node_path accepts either a TOP node or a TOPnet path, which is more than the schema's bare 'Node Path' string. It still omits format details such as path syntax, relative vs absolute, or what an invalid path yields.

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 gives a clear verb+resource: 'Cancel active cooking on a TOP network,' which is specific and actionable. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling pause_top_cook, leaving the agent to infer the difference between cancelling and pausing a cook.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g. that a cook must be active), and no mention of alternatives such as pause_top_cook or cook_top_node. The agent gets no routing help for choosing between the closely related sibling tools.

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