Team drive: cancel

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: 'cooperative' signals the cancellation may not take effect immediately, 'already indexed files remain' bounds the destructiveness, and 'writes local job state only' scopes the write. This complements destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false well, though it doesn't say how progress/completion of the cancellation is observed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every clause carries distinct information (mechanism, data safety, write scope). No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers non-destructiveness and resumability for a mutation tool. The remaining gap is operational: no pointer to team_drive_job_status for confirming the job actually stopped.

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 required parameter job_id is never mentioned; schema coverage is 0% and the property carries no description. It is a self-evidently named identifier with type and length constraints visible in the schema, which keeps this at minimum-viable, but the description misses an easy win by not saying where a job_id comes from (e.g., team_drive_list or team_drive_job_status).

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Request cooperative cancellation of an indexing job.' The phrase 'resume by refreshing' implicitly points at the team_drive_refresh sibling, but the tool is never contrasted explicitly with team_drive_job_status or team_drive_status, which an agent also has available for job tracking.

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 implies the usage flow (cancel, then refresh to resume) rather than stating when to choose this over team_drive_job_status or team_drive_status. There is no explicit when-not guidance or statement of prerequisites.

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