cancel_case

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the solver process tree is terminated and that cancellation is only 'requested' (implying asynchronous), but omits preconditions, idempotency, authorization needs, and whether the case or its artifacts are left in a recoverable state.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the destructive scope (process tree) is stated directly rather than buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the core action is clear. For a destructive, annotation-free mutation tool, though, an agent is left guessing about partial-failure behavior, whether cancellation is reversible, and how to confirm the outcome.

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?

Only one parameter (case_id) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, so it does not compensate for the gap. The parameter is self-evidently named, keeping this at a minimum-viable 3 rather than lower.

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 (Request cancellation) and precise resource scope: the queued or active job plus its solver process tree. That distinguishes it from start_case, plan_case, and case_status by implication, though no sibling is named 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?

The phrase 'queued or active job' implicitly scopes when the tool applies, which is useful. But it never says what to do for a completed or failed case, whether it should be combined with case_status polling, or what alternatives exist if cancellation is rejected.

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