Cancel a solve

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the billing consequence ('Cancelled solves are not charged') and the set of cancellable states.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the cancellable-state scope front-loaded before the billing note.

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 mutation with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essentials: scope of valid targets and cost implications. Only the outcome of cancelling a non-cancellable solve is left unstated.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents it fully (100% coverage) including the 'solve_…' format. The description adds nothing about the id beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('solve') with a scoping qualifier ('pending or running'). This distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like get_solve and list_solves, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 phrase 'pending or running' implies the applicability condition, but the description never states what happens if the solve is already completed/failed, nor does it point to an alternative (e.g., report_solve_outcome) for such cases.

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