cancel_upload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the upload handle is freed server-side, whether partially transferred data is cleaned up, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens on an already-completed upload. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a critical gap.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but it is under-specified rather than concise: the size is too small for a mutation tool with an undocumented required parameter and no annotations.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but that is the only thing covered. With no annotations, an undocumented required parameter, and no statement of effects or preconditions, the definition is not complete enough to invoke the tool safely.

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 single required parameter 'name' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. It is unclear whether 'name' is the upload ID, a file name, or a job name, so the agent cannot supply it correctly from the description alone.

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 clear verb+resource ('Cancel an upload'), which is better than a bare restatement of the name. However, it never identifies which upload subsystem this applies to, even though a sibling (start_schematic_upload, get_upload_progress) makes the target ambiguous, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish this from other cancellation tools like cancel_command.

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 and no mention of alternatives, despite cancel_command and stop_mining existing in the sibling set. The agent must infer the applicable conditions entirely on its own.

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