cancel_model_unwrap

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds the important precondition that the unwrap must be 'in-progress', but it does not explain side effects such as whether partial UV data is discarded or whether cancellation is a no-op when no job exists.

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?

One short sentence packs the verb, resource, state, and scope with no filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding, and the key precondition 'in-progress' is placed before the resource.

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, the description plus annotations cover the core information: what is canceled, in what state, and the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive). It leaves minor questions about job-state behavior implicit, but the idempotentHint largely resolves those.

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 single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema as 'Model asset id' with exclusiveMinimum 0, so schema coverage is 100%. The description's 'model asset' echo adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies a precise verb ('Cancel'), a specific target ('UV1 unwrap'), and the resource scope ('model asset'), making the intent unmistakable. It is clearly distinct from related siblings like unwrap_model_asset and cancel_merge because it is the cancellation counterpart for UV1 unwrapping.

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 'in-progress' implies the tool is only appropriate when an unwrap is already running, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other tools or what to do if no unwrap is active. There is no exclusionary guidance, so the usage is inferred rather than explicit.

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