workspace_cancel_reference_expansion

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the stop is permanent and that imported papers and history are preserved, which is useful. However, it does not explain what happens to other data (e.g., intermediate results, settings) or any side effects, leaving gaps in understanding the full impact.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action ('Permanently stop') and then adds a clarifying benefit. It is concise and structured logically, with no redundant filler, though it may be too sparse for the tool's complexity.

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?

For a destructive, irreversible action with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information about prerequisites, side effects, reversibility (beyond 'permanently'), and how to distinguish this from pause/decide operations. The description should provide more context to allow safe and correct invocation.

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 0% and the description does not elaborate on the run_id parameter beyond the schema's bare 'Run Id'. It does not explain what a run_id is, how to obtain it, or its format. Since the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema detail, the meaning is under-specified.

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 states a specific action (permanently stop) and resource (this run), and adds the preservation detail which distinguishes it from a plain stop. However, 'this run' is vague without explicitly referencing the reference-expansion run from the tool name, so it's clear but not maximally specific.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like workspace_pause_reference_expansion or workspace_decide_reference_expansion. The description does not mention exclusions, conditions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer the usage context.

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