reading_cancel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful trait that it installs a "no-future-injection barrier," but stays jargon-heavy and never says what data or in-flight state is lost on cancel.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and no padding. The second sentence is slightly dense jargon, but nothing is wasted.

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, idempotent mutation the annotations cover the safety profile, and the default-selection rule is given. Missing are the fate of cancelled work, the purpose of reason, and immediacy semantics, which an agent would want before invoking a destructive cancel.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It usefully documents operation_id's default (omitted selects the active operation), but says nothing about the reason parameter, leaving half the inputs unexplained.

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 ("Cancel reading") that clearly separates it from siblings reading_start and reading_status. It adds a scope note ("no-future-injection barrier") but never names the siblings or contrasts behavior with them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the second sentence explains what happens when operation_id is omitted, which hints at when the default form applies, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over reading_status or when cancellation is inappropriate.

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