cancel_record_deletion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that cancellation only applies to subtasks not started, and that already-deleted data is not restored. It lists required environment variable and scopes. However, it does not mention behavior for completed deletions or error responses.

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 two sentences: first clearly states the action, second adds nuance and requirements. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. No superfluous text.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints (in progress/queued, no restore), prerequisites (env var, scopes). It omits details on return values or error handling, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100% (one parameter, taskId, described as 'The task ID returned by execute_record_deletion.'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action: cancel a Grail record deletion process that is in progress or queued. It distinguishes from sibling tools like execute_record_deletion and get_record_deletion_status by specifying the scope of cancellation and noting that already-deleted data is not restored.

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 includes prerequisites (DT_ENABLE_WRITES=true) and required scopes. It implicitly suggests usage when a deletion task is in progress or queued, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives. The reference to the task ID from execute_record_deletion provides context.

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