razz_cancel_queue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses scope constraints ('Only works if you are queued'). However, it omits whether the operation is idempotent, what specific error occurs if called while not queued, or what success looks like.

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 sentences with zero waste: first states the action, second provides constraints and prerequisite. Information is perfectly front-loaded with the core verb appearing immediately.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, single purpose) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the action, constraints, and prerequisite check. Minor gap regarding return value or success confirmation, but sufficient for agent selection.

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 input schema contains zero parameters, which per evaluation rules establishes a baseline of 4. The description appropriately requires no parameter explanation since the action is context-dependent (acts on the authenticated user's current state).

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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel') with a specific resource ('spectator crash queue entry'), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling queue tools like razz_leave_hexwar_queue or razz_leave_room by specifying the exact context (spectator crash queue vs. playing live).

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?

Provides explicit when-not conditions ('not if already playing in a live round') and names a specific prerequisite tool ('Use get_my_queue first'), giving clear workflow guidance on when to invoke this versus alternatives.

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