Cancel a pending secure input request

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered, but the description adds nothing about what cancellation actually does to an outstanding request, whether a canceled request can later be submitted, or whether the call is idempotent or errors on an already-completed request. With a destructive mutation and zero disclosure of its effect, this leaves a real gap.

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 words is brief but not concise in the useful sense: nothing is front-loaded because nothing is explained. The size reflects under-specification rather than economy.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and five closely related siblings, the description does not give an agent enough to call it correctly or predict the result. It should at minimum identify the request identifier's source and the effect of cancellation.

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?

There is exactly one parameter (requestId) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema supplies only type and length constraints. The description never mentions requestId, how to obtain it, or which sibling returns it, leaving the parameter's semantics entirely undocumented.

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 pairs a verb (cancel) with a vague object ("pending input"), so the resource is only identifiable by leaning on the title, which says "secure input request." It is enough to know this cancels something pending, but it does not state the scope or distinguish it from siblings like check_secret_request or secureinput_status.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the other five siblings (submit_inline_secret, check_secret_request, request_secret, secureinput_status, inline_request_status). The agent must infer that this is the teardown counterpart to request_secret on its own.

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