federation_cancel_subscriptions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose concrete behavior: it kills worker processes plus their CLI children and cleans the registry, and it is flagged МУТИРУЮЩИЙ. It does not say whether cancellation is reversible, what happens if no workers are running, or what permissions are needed, which keeps it below a 5.

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 compact clauses: the operation and its effects come first, the mutating/user-request caveat second. Every phrase adds signal, though the parenthetical '(передумал, квота горит)' is more color than specification.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation mutation tool, the description covers purpose, counterpart, destructive effects, and trigger context. The remaining gaps (return value, no-op behavior, auth) are modest but real given nothing structured carries them.

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 coverage is 0% and the single session_id parameter has no schema description. The description implies session scope through 'сессии' and the reference to federation_run_subscriptions, but never states that session_id identifies the session whose workers are being stopped, so the mapping is inferable rather than stated.

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 (остановить фоновых подписочных воркеров сессии) and explicitly names the sibling that creates them (federation_run_subscriptions), so an agent can distinguish cancel from run without opening either schema. The added detail (гасит процессы вместе с CLI-детьми и чистит реестр) sharpens what 'cancel' actually means.

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?

Gives the trigger context explicitly: 'по просьбе юзера (передумал, квота горит)', i.e. use when the user changes their mind or is burning quota. It does not name a preferred alternative (e.g. subscriptions_status for inspection-only) or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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