cancel_challenge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('cancel') but doesn't explain consequences (e.g., whether cancellation is reversible, if it notifies the opponent, or what permissions are required). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations or output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error conditions, or usage context, leaving the agent with incomplete information to invoke it correctly in real scenarios.

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 'challengeId' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or where to find challenge IDs), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Cancel an outgoing challenge' clearly states the action (cancel) and target (outgoing challenge), providing a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'decline_challenge' (which likely handles incoming challenges) by specifying 'outgoing', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to be the challenger), when not to use it (e.g., if the challenge is already accepted), or compare it to related tools like 'decline_challenge' or 'withdraw_from_arena'.

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