cancel_merge

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing what is destroyed (the merge and its conflicts), what is preserved ('Project data is untouched'), and a notable side effect ('Does not reload the editor'). These details add real behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and consequences come first, followed by the critical exclusion and alternative. Every sentence 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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: purpose, effect, side effects, and when to avoid the tool. It fully contextualizes cancellation among the merge-related siblings.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already well described as 'Id of the merge to cancel (from start_merge)'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, 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 uses a specific verb ('force-stop') and resource ('in-progress merge'), and clarifies the outcome: discarding the merge and its conflicts. It clearly distinguishes this from apply_merge by naming the sibling tool in the when-not-to-use note.

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 main sentence states the intended use: cancel an in-progress merge. It also explicitly tells the agent when NOT to use it ('to commit a merge') and names the correct alternative ('use apply_merge'). This is strong routing guidance.

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