intent_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states that cancellation does not complete the intention, but omits crucial details such as whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or how it affects related data. This is insufficient for a mutation-like action.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without extraneous details, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description lacks critical context about side effects, reversibility, and the meaning of the parameter. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description fails to provide a complete picture for an agent to safely invoke the tool, especially for a cancel operation.

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 one required parameter (intent_id) with zero description coverage. The description does not elaborate on what intent_id refers to, relying solely on the parameter name. Since the parameter is self-explanatory but not explicitly linked to the description, the compensation is minimal.

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 intention without completing it' clearly states the action (cancel) and the resource (intention). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like intent_complete by explicitly noting it does not complete the intention, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when one needs to cancel an intention, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like intent_complete or intent_due. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative conditions, leaving some ambiguity.

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