Cancel Message Processing Log

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the write permission requirement and the need for confirm=true, both important for a cancellation operation. However, it stops short of explaining consequences such as irreversibility or side effects on stored message data.

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?

Single sentence that is efficiently front-loaded with action, example, and requirement. Every phrase adds value, with no memory waste.

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 mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides the core use case and safety requirements, but omits details about return values, failure conditions, and irreversibility. The messageGuid parameter also lacks context, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 only 50%; description adds no new meaning for messageGuid, which is the required parameter and remains undocumented. The confirm parameter is described in the schema and the description merely repeats 'confirm=true' without adding insights.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Cancel' and identifies the resource as 'a currently processing/retrying message' with an explicit example of a stuck JMS or scheduled message. It clearly distinguishes this mutating tool from the many get/list siblings.

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?

Description states the intended scenario (processing/retrying/stuck messages) and prerequisites (ALLOW_WRITE, confirm=true). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context makes the use case clear and differentiates it from sibling tools.

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