cancel_extraction

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds some context by mentioning that cancellation returns 'bounded cleanup state', which gives a behavioral hint beyond the schema. However, it does not explain what changes the cancellation causes or what 'bounded cleanup state' means, and it does not contradict the 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It captures the action, the target resource, and the return behavior in one concise statement. The term 'bounded cleanup state' is compact, though somewhat specialized, but the structure itself is exemplary.

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 tool is simple: one required parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema is present, so the description need not document return values in detail. The description covers the essential action and the resource scope, and the 'server-owned' qualifier helps an agent distinguish it from related tools. It could mention cancellation semantics or prerequisites, but the low complexity makes the current description sufficient.

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 only one parameter, operation_id, with no description in the schema, leaving 0% schema coverage. The tool description ties operation_id to a 'server-owned extraction', which gives the parameter semantic meaning beyond its bare name. It does not explain where the operation_id comes from or how it relates to get_extraction, but for a single self-named parameter this is adequate.

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 states a specific verb ('Request cancellation') and resource ('server-owned extraction'), and even hints at the response ('bounded cleanup state'). It distinguishes itself from sibling cancellation tools like cancel_detached_capture by adding 'server-owned', though it does not name an alternative explicitly. The phrase 'bounded cleanup state' is somewhat vague but does not obscure the core action.

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 implies when to use the tool: to request cancellation of a server-owned extraction. It provides a mild exclusion by specifying 'server-owned', which differentiates it from detached captures or capability setup cancellations, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. An agent can infer the context, but clearer routing guidance would improve the definition.

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