ecg_cancel_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses idempotency ('No-op if it is already gone') and scope ('Does not delete stored facts'), which are real behavioral traits. But it omits permissions/auth needs, reversibility, and any indication of the result of the call.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero padding; the primary action leads and the two behavioral caveats follow. Every sentence earns its place.

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 2-parameter cancel tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors (idempotency, non-destruction of facts). It is nonetheless incomplete on parameter meaning and on how it differs from the sibling discard tool, leaving real gaps.

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 0% and neither parameter (session_id, exchange_id) is explained in the description. The text refers vaguely to a 'staged proposal,' but does not clarify what session_id or exchange_id identify or how they relate to the dropped step.

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+resource ('Drop a staged proposal'), which is clear on its own. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'ecg_discard_proposal', which sounds nearly synonymous, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the text alone.

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 versus alternatives such as ecg_discard_proposal, nor any prerequisites (session/exchange state needed). The 'no-op if it is already gone' clause describes behavior, not when-to-use.

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