wisepanel_cancel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Cancel') but does not describe behavioral traits such as whether cancellation is reversible, what happens to the run (e.g., deletion, stopping), permission requirements, rate limits, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, though it minimally indicates a destructive 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 description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part contributing essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (a mutation operation to cancel runs), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like effects of cancellation, error conditions, or return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use. The description alone is insufficient for a mutation tool with no structured support.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'run_id' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no details on run_id format or examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Cancel') and target resource ('a running Wisepanel deliberation'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'wisepanel_list_runs' (list), 'wisepanel_poll' (check status), 'wisepanel_publish' (publish), 'wisepanel_result' (retrieve results), and 'wisepanel_start' (initiate). It uses precise verb+resource phrasing without tautology.

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 usage context ('a running Wisepanel deliberation'), suggesting it should be used on active runs, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., vs. 'wisepanel_poll' for status checks or 'wisepanel_result' for completed runs) or provide exclusions (e.g., not for completed runs). It offers basic implied guidance but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use details.

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