openvsp.batch_cancel

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

The description adds critical nuance beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: it clarifies that cancellation does not delete artifacts and preserves successful results. It also discloses asynchronous cleanup ('poll openvsp.batch_status'), signals active native work, and notes ownership restrictions. No contradiction with annotations; in fact, it refines the meaning of destructive behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loads the primary action, and covers essential operational details (state updates, polling, ownership, retry) without excessive verbosity. Slight redundancy with the schema (e.g., empty case_ids meaning) but it does not bloat the text and the unique ownership/retry info earns its place.

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 cancellation tool with asynchronous behavior, the description covers the key actions, parameters, state updates, cleanup polling, artifact preservation, ownership constraints, and retry path. Since an output schema exists, return format is handled. The only minor gap is not specifying the exact effect on in-progress work (only 'signals active native work'), but this is acceptable given the schema and annotations.

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 100% for both case_ids and batch_directory, and the tool description largely echoes the schema's semantics (empty case_ids means whole batch, unknown IDs fail, successful results preserved). The description does not introduce new parameter-specific details, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 action ('Request cancellation of selected case IDs, or the whole batch') and clearly identifies the resource (cases/batch). It also distinguishes its default behavior (empty case_ids cancels whole batch) from its sibling batch_resume, which is the opposite operation for retry. This makes the tool's role immediately unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when not to use this tool: 'a batch owned by another server must be cancelled through that owner.' It also directs the agent to the alternative batch_resume for retry-non-successful cases, and to poll batch_status for cleanup completion. These clear exclusions and alternative references provide excellent selection guidance.

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