codex_gravity_cancel_completion

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It clarifies cancellation scope by excluding Antigravity cancellation and Codex message recall, but it omits permissions, idempotency, effect on the watch, prerequisites, and error 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation, and the exclusion clause is compact. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 output schema covers return values, but the description leaves required parameter semantics and cancellation behavior undocumented, and there are no annotations to compensate. For a mutation tool with two required parameters, this is incomplete.

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?

Both parameters are required with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never names watch_id or workspace_path. The word 'watch' weakly implies watch_id, but workspace_path is completely unaddressed in the description.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('a completion watch'), and the second rules out two nearby confusions: cancelling Antigravity or recalling an already submitted Codex message. The action is unambiguous against siblings such as codex_gravity_watch_completion and codex_gravity_completion_status.

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?

It explains what the tool does and explicitly states two things it does not do, which gives clear usage context and exclusions. However, it never says when to check codex_gravity_completion_status first or what alternative to use instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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