spidra_cancel_batch

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining the consequences: refunds for unprocessed items and preservation of finished results. This adds valuable behavioral context not available in structured data. It does not contradict 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?

The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary words 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the key behavioral aspects: what it cancels, refund behavior, and item preservation. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly, though it does not describe potential errors or return values.

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 parameter (batchId) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain what batchId refers to or where to obtain it. The parameter semantics are under-specified, although the name 'batchId' is self-explanatory, it lacks guidance on its provenance or validation.

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 clearly states the action ('Cancel') and the resource ('a pending or running batch scrape'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like spidra_cancel_crawl by specifying scrape type. It also mentions outcome details (credits refunded, finished items kept), making the purpose 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use: canceling a batch scrape that is pending or running. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but it is evident that this tool is for batch cancels, not crawls or individual scrapes. Lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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