cancel_prepared_action

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint and non-destructive hints, so the additional explicit note that the cancel is local and sends no request to AutoFYI/FYI adds valuable behavioral context beyond the structured data. This clarifies side effects without contradicting annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately adding the key scope qualifier ('locally', 'No request is sent'). No redundant words or information.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and important caveat (local, no network request). It does not describe error handling for invalid confirmation_id, but the simplicity and annotation coverage make the description reasonably complete.

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 schema has one required parameter, confirmation_id, with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain where the confirmation ID comes from or how to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the absence of schema documentation.

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 names a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('prepared action'), and immediately distinguishes the local, no-op behavior from potentially remote alternatives by stating 'No request is sent to AutoFYI or FYI.' This clearly identifies the tool's unique scope among siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: cancel a locally prepared action before execution. However, there is no explicit mention of when NOT to use it or comparison to alternatives like execute_confirmed_action or get_prepared_action, leaving the context only implicit.

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