cancel-downtime

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, signaling a mutating operation. The description confirms cancellation but adds no further behavioral context, such as what happens to associated resources or permission requirements. For a destructive tool, this is adequate but not enhanced beyond 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 a single sentence of 6 words, front-loaded with the action 'Cancel', and contains zero superfluous information. Every word is necessary, achieving maximum conciseness.

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, clear annotations), the description is mostly complete. However, it omits what happens upon success or failure (e.g., confirmation, errors for non-active downtimes), which could be important for the agent. Since no output schema exists, the description should at least hint at the outcome.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'downtimeId' fully described in the schema (type, required, example). The description simply says 'by ID', adding no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 'Cancel an active downtime by ID' uses a specific verb 'cancel' and clearly identifies the resource 'active downtime' and the identifier 'ID'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'create-downtime' and 'list-downtimes', which perform different operations.

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 other cancel tools (e.g., cancel-fleet-deployment) or what prerequisites are needed (e.g., obtaining the downtime ID via list-downtimes). It lacks any when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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