Cancel Ongoing Trace

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

With only an openWorldHint annotation (not behavior-related), the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without explaining effects on trace data, confirmation requirements, or whether cancellation is reversible, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous information. Every word is necessary, achieving ideal conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any mention of return values or confirmation behavior, which would improve completeness for a simple cancellation action.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, achieving the baseline of 3.

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 uses a clear verb 'Cancel' and specific resource 'ongoing trace execution for a project', which effectively conveys the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like openl_start_trace or openl_export_trace, though the name itself is distinct enough.

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate selection among trace-related siblings.

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