volume_cancel_expansionCancel an ongoing volume expansion to stop resizing and restore the volume to its previous state. Use when an expansion must be aborted.
Cancel an in-progress volume expansion. Longhorn docs: https://longhorn.io/docs/1.12.1/nodes-and-volumes/volumes/create-volumes/
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that this is a cancel/mutation operation, but it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, idempotency, failure behavior, or what state the volume will be in after cancellation. The documentation link is a pointer, not a substitute for behavioral disclosure.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler, and it includes a documentation link for further reference. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the core meaning.
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 operation with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter guidance, this description is incomplete. It lacks details about prerequisites, expected behavior, error conditions, and the meaning of the only parameter. The documentation link helps but does not make the tool self-sufficient for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'name' parameter. It does not explicitly say whether 'name' refers to the volume name, an expansion ID, or something else. The phrase 'volume expansion' gives a weak domain clue, but this is not sufficient.
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 states a specific action ('Cancel') and a specific resource ('an in-progress volume expansion'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling volume_expand, which initiates expansion.
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 volume expansion' provides a clear condition for when this tool should be used: only when an expansion is currently underway. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare it with alternatives, but the context is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.