Cancel an in-progress generation or clear an unchanged unsent draft for a request, with cancellation confirmation returned while the worker handles it.
Cancel this request’s owned generation or clear its unchanged unsent draft. Returns cancel_requested while its worker handles cancellation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value ('cancel_requested'), the asynchronous nature ('while its worker handles cancellation'), and the precise targets of the operation. It doesn't state irreversibility or failure modes, but for a cancellation tool this is solid coverage.
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, front-loaded with the action verb 'Cancel', and the second sentence adds the return value and async status without fluff. Every word 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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the scope conditions, the return value, and the async behavior. It omits error cases or what happens when there is no owned generation, but these are minor for this level of complexity.
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 schema provides only a bare request_id with length constraints and no description. The description anchors that parameter by saying 'this request's owned generation' and 'unchanged unsent draft', giving the agent meaningful semantic context about what request_id identifies and compensating for the 0% schema coverage.
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' and specifies two concrete actions: canceling an owned generation or clearing an unchanged unsent draft. This is a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly sets it apart from siblings like chatgpt_ask, chatgpt_health, and review_with_chatgpt.
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 defines the scope of use: only an owned generation or an unchanged unsent draft, which gives clear contextual grounding. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the sibling tool names make the cancellation context self-evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.