wake_cancel

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so mutation is expected. The description adds useful context: that the watch stops matching and that wake_wait on it returns idle. It also notes that TTL and event caps would end it anyway, framing this as an early termination. This exceeds what annotations alone provide, with no contradictions.

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?

Three concise sentences with no redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds essential context (termination mechanism, effect on wake_wait). No wasted words.

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 single-parameter tool with a clear purpose and effect on a sibling, the description is complete. It doesn't have an output schema, but it explains the outcome via wake_wait behavior. Missing edge-case handling (e.g., invalid id) is not required for basic usage.

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 100%, and the schema already describes wakeId as 'Watch id returned by the wake tool.' The description does not add further parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 action ('Cancel a Wake watch by id') and the resource (Wake watch). It distinguishes from siblings by noting TTL/event caps as alternative termination mechanisms and explicitly mentions the effect on wake_wait (returns idle). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 it: when you want to end a watch immediately rather than waiting for natural expiration. It also clarifies the behavioral consequence for wake_wait. However, it doesn't explicitly state scenarios where cancellation is inappropriate or alternatives to prefer, but the context is sufficient for most use cases.

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