cancel_record

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's repetition of 'destructive' adds limited value. However, it introduces the behavioral nuance that 'the default ceiling refuses it and says what would not', which tells agents that the tool may be blocked and explains why. This is useful context beyond the annotation, but the phrase 'following the wizard it returns' remains cryptic.

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 short but not clear or well-structured. The first sentence is technical ('through `action_cancel`'), and the second sentence is confusing ('says what would not'). Conciseness without clarity is counterproductive.

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?

The tool has 2 required parameters, a destructive annotation, an output schema, and 18 sibling tools. The description fails to cover how the parameters affect behavior, what the output contains (despite having an output schema), or how this tool fits into the broader workflow. It is grossly insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain all parameters. It does not: neither 'model' nor 'record_id' are described. The description contains zero parameter guidance, leaving the agent to guess what values are expected or valid.

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 states 'Cancel a record' but fails to specify what kind of record, in which domain, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'write_record' or 'run_action'. The phrase 'through `action_cancel`' is jargon and doesn't clarify the scope, making the purpose vague and poorly communicated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions 'destructive' and a 'default ceiling refuses it', it does not explain which scenarios warrant cancellation or when a non-destructive alternative (like 'write_record') would be more appropriate. The context is entirely absent.

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