Cancel KB Sync Index Attempt

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is a destructive but repeatable operation. The description adds the useful 'in-progress' qualifier but does not disclose what happens when cancelled, whether partial results are removed, or if any permissions are required. This is some added context but not rich.

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 sentence of five words, front-loads the verb and object, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 destructive operation with no output schema, the description is sparse. It does not mention the effects of cancellation, return value, or how it differs from the related 'pause' tool. However, the schema fully documents parameters and annotations provide safety hints, making it minimally viable but with clear 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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema with clear descriptions ('The index attempt id to cancel' and 'The connector-credential pair id'). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 specific action ('Cancel') and the target resource ('index attempt'), and qualifies it with 'in-progress' to distinguish it from other operations like pausing a connector-credential pair. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pausing a pair or deleting an attempt. The only implied condition is that the attempt must be in-progress, but there is no explicit statement of prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it.

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