Cancel Pending Operation

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that only pending/unexecuted operations are affected and frames the action as discarding a plan. It doesn't detail error behavior or exact side effects, but the combination covers the essential safety profile.

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 short sentences; the action and scope are front-loaded and no word is wasted.

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 simple cancellation tool with one required parameter and strong annotations, the description explains what it does and when to use it. It doesn't specify the return value or how to obtain operation_id, but the presence of operation_list and the tool's low complexity keep it usable.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), and the tool's description doesn't duplicate parameter details. 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'cancel' and names the resource 'pending operation' with the qualifier 'not yet been executed.' This clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like operation_list/operation_status and from plan/execute tools.

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?

It gives a clear use case: 'This is useful if you want to discard a planned operation.' It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to call it.

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