cancel_detached_capture

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior; the description reinforces retry safety and adds useful scope safety by emphasizing 'only the exact detached task owned by this server.' This goes beyond the structured data without contradicting it.

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 front-loads the operation and packs in the key scoping and idempotency information with no filler.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover result and safety aspects, and the scope note is helpful. The main gap is the missing link between cancel_detached_capture and its siblings start_detached_capture/get_detached_capture for obtaining run_id.

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 the description does not explain run_id beyond implying it identifies the exact task. The parameter name is suggestive, but an agent gets no guidance on format, provenance, or where to find valid values.

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 precise verb (cancel), a specific resource (detached task), and a scoping qualifier ('exact...owned by this server'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like start_detached_capture and get_detached_capture.

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 intended usage is implied: cancel a detached capture/task. The ownership qualifier provides some exclusion context, but the description does not explicitly tell an agent when to prefer this over alternatives or how to obtain the run_id.

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