cancel_snipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Cancel' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects other resources, or what happens on success/failure. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 destructive operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'snipe attempt', what happens after cancellation, whether there are side effects, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of cancellation operations and lack of structured safety information, more context is needed.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'snipe_id' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameter beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Cancel') and target resource ('a scheduled snipe attempt'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cancel_reservation' or explain what distinguishes a 'snipe' from other operations in this context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cancel_reservation' or 'list_snipes'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an active snipe), error conditions, or typical workflow context.

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