cancel_detached_capture

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent, open world), the description adds that cancellation is limited to the exact detached task owned by this server, which is meaningful behavioral context. It also reinforces idempotency in natural language, though that is already in annotations.

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?

A single sentence of 12 words contains all essential information: action, scope, and idempotency. Every word earns its place with no filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the simple schema (one required parameter), existing annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and key behavior. It does not detail edge cases (e.g., if task already completed) but is reasonably complete for a simple cancellation tool.

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 schema has no parameter description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It implies that run_id identifies the exact detached task ('Cancel only the exact detached task'), but does not explicitly explain run_id's format or origin. This is adequate but minimal for a single-parameter tool.

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') and the specific resource ('the exact detached task owned by this server'), which is precise and distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_capability_setup. The qualifier 'only the exact...owned by this server' adds scope and avoids ambiguity.

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 conveys when to use the tool: to cancel a specific detached task belonging to this server. It also notes that repeated calls are safe, implying idempotent usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions beyond the scoping, so it misses full marks.

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