sql_editor_ask_cancel

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which gives the agent a safety signal, but cancelling an in-flight generation does change server-side process state, so the hint is at least in tension with the tool's behavior and the description does nothing to clarify it. It also omits what happens on cancel (partial answer retained? error raised? idempotent if already finished?).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action verb first and no filler; nothing is wasted. It is efficient but so terse that the brevity shades into under-specification rather than crispness.

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 one-parameter control tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic intent. It is still missing the id's origin, behavior when no answer is running, and any differentiation from the other two cancel tools, which is material given this crowded sibling set.

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% — editor_id carries only a bare title — so the description is the only source of parameter meaning, and it adds almost none. Saying "one SQL Editor" hints that the parameter identifies an editor but gives no format, source, or how to obtain the id.

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 ("Stop") and resource ("the in-app answer that is running") scoped to a single SQL Editor, so an agent can tell it is a cancellation tool rather than a query or answer tool. It falls short of 5 because it never names its counterpart sql_editor_ask, leaving the pairing implicit.

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 phrase "that is running" implies the usage condition (an answer is in flight) but never states it as a rule or says what to do if nothing is running. With three cancel-shaped siblings in the list (sql_editor_ask_cancel, query_history_ask_cancel, query_history_compare_cancel), the description relies on "SQL Editor" alone to disambiguate the domain.

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