cancel_download

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key side effect: 'What has arrived stays in the .part file' and that subsequent download_model calls continue rather than restart. It also cautions about counter-productive use on slow transfers. However, it doesn't mention edge cases like idempotency or error behavior when the download is already finished, which would round out transparency.

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 efficiently structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, a brief behavioral note, and a labeled Args section. Every sentence adds unique value, and the format is front-loaded with the essential verb and 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 tool with a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral transparency. It is fully complete for the tool's simplicity and leaves no critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 only provides job_id with a default of '', but the description adds complete semantics: it specifies the format '<folder>/<filename>', the shorthand of just the filename, and that empty means 'the most recent download.' This fully compensates for the 0% schema description 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 clearly states 'Stop a download that is still running,' which is a specific verb+resource action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like download_model (starts downloads) and get_download_progress (queries progress), and from interrupt which likely targets workflows rather than file downloads.

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 gives explicit when-to-use (stop a running download) and when-not-to-use guidance: 'For a transfer that is merely slow this is counter-productive.' It also explains the alternative of calling download_model again to resume, effectively providing a clear usage context and exclusion.

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