tc_login_cancel

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

Annotations already include idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral detail by noting it frees the callback port and returns a boolean cancelled flag, which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction found.

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 extremely concise: a one-line action, a two-line usage scenario, and a one-line return format. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant information.

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 zero-parameter tool with no input schema properties, the description fully covers purpose, when to use, and the return value. The annotations and output schema handle remaining context, making this description complete.

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 input schema contains zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is necessary. The description correctly omits parameter details and still conveys the tool's behavior, aligning with the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Abort' and identifies the resource: 'a browser sign-in that is still waiting' and 'free the callback port'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tc_login (which initiates sign-in) and tc_auth_status (which checks status).

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use when a tc_login attempt was abandoned (wrong account, browser closed) and the local callback listener should stop before starting a new login.' It provides clear context and sequence, though it does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools.

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