cancelar_sincronizacion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cancellation semantics (graceful stop after current bulletin, immediate stop during pause), the return value (state with 'origen'), and the persistence behavior (indexed data preserved, resumable). It does not mention side effects like whether a partially processed bulletin is kept, but the provided details are substantial.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: the origin clarification, the stopping behavior, the return value, and the resumption guarantee. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when it stops, what it returns, and what happens to indexed data. It could mention whether the operation is idempotent or what happens if no sync is running, but the given context is largely complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description compensates by explaining what the tool does and what it returns, which is sufficient for a parameterless action. A 4 is appropriate because there is no parameter burden to carry, and the description adds meaningful context about the operation's behavior.

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 tool's action ('Pide parar la sincronización en curso de este proceso'), the resource affected (the ongoing synchronization), and its scope (any origin, only one runs at a time). It distinguishes itself from siblings like sincronizar_indice and estado_indice by describing the cancellation behavior and its relationship to a future sync.

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 explicitly explains when to use it: to stop an ongoing synchronization regardless of origin, and clarifies that it finishes the current bulletin or stops instantly during a pause. It also explains the consequence (indexed data is kept, a new sync continues from there), which helps an agent decide between this and other index-related tools.

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