wake_cancel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that cancellation is immediate and contrasts it with TTL/event-cap-based termination. It does omit details like idempotency, error handling, or side effects, but for a simple one-parameter cancel operation the disclosed behavior is adequate and honest.

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 one concise sentence of about 14 words. The core action is front-loaded, and the clarifying note about TTL/event caps is meaningful rather than filler. Every part earns its place.

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 cancellation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, target resource, and a relevant behavioral nuance. It omits return-value and error expectations, but those gaps are minor given the tool's simplicity. Slightly more detail about what happens after cancellation would make it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'Cancel a Wake watch' maps the wakeId parameter to the watch being canceled, but it doesn't clarify where the ID comes from, its expected format, or behavior for an invalid ID. The parameter name does some of the work, making this minimally 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 opens with 'Cancel a Wake watch,' a specific verb and target resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like wake and wake_wait by indicating cancellation rather than creation or waiting. The second clause adds useful immediate-effect semantics without blurring the purpose.

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?

'TTL and event caps end it anyway; this ends it now' gives clear context for when to call the tool: when immediate termination is desired rather than waiting for natural expiry. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, which keeps it from a 5, but the intended usage context is clear.

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