path_cancel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('취소합니다' - cancels), implying a destructive operation that might discard unsaved path data, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires an active path, what happens to the path data (e.g., deletion vs. reset), or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 in Korean that directly states the tool's action. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and has no wasted words, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with potential data loss), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '패스 빌더' entails, the consequences of cancellation, or what the tool returns (e.g., success status). For a tool that likely interacts with an active drawing state, 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's acceptable given the schema completeness. Baseline is 4 for tools with 0 parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 '현재 패스 빌더를 취소합니다' (Cancels the current path builder) states a clear verb ('취소합니다' - cancels) and resource ('패스 빌더' - path builder), but it's vague about what '패스 빌더' specifically refers to in this drawing/vector graphics context. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'path_finish' or 'path_create', which might have related functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an active path builder), exclusions, or related tools like 'path_finish' that might handle path completion differently. The description only states what it does without context.

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