Cancel Backup Share

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by stating the authorization model (owner, Manage Backups member, or the originating member). It stops short of describing the effect on state or error 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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the operational condition is front-loaded and the permissions follow. Nothing redundant.

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?

With no output schema and only one required parameter, the description covers the essential context: what it acts on, its timing constraint, and who may call it. Return values need not be explained. It is close to complete, missing only expected outcome/error semantics.

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 100% — shareId and spaceId are fully documented, including the KROVA_SPACE_ID default fallback. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (withdraw/cancel) and resource (a pending backup share this space offered), plus the temporal scope (before the destination answers). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling accept/decline_backup_share, which operate on the recipient side.

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?

Gives the condition under which it applies (a pending share, before the destination responds) and lists who may invoke it. It does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools, but the 'this space offered' phrasing implicitly routes the agent away from decline/accept.

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