auth_cancel

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the scenario context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like side effects or reversibility. It is consistent with annotations and adds modest value beyond them.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action and condition efficiently. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, simple cancel operation, the description is complete: it states the action and the exact situation in which to use it. An output schema exists, so return values are covered; no further explanation is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4. It adds no parameter details but none are required.

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 'Отменить' (cancel) with a clear resource 'auth-flow', and adds the precise scenario 'if you requested a code but didn't enter it'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like auth_submit_code and auth_request_code.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when an auth-flow is unfinished, specifically after requesting a code but before entering it. It provides clear context but does not mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling list makes the alternative obvious.

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