neurover_cleanup_cancel

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether cancellation is reversible, whether in-flight cleanup work is aborted, whether a jobId must reference an active job, or what happens on an invalid/already-finished job.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good. But it is sized far below what this mutation tool needs, so the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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?

A one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations explaining outcomes needs the description to cover effect, reversibility and error conditions; none of that is present. Combined with 0% schema coverage, the agent is left guessing what cancelling actually does.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the only information about the single required jobId is its type/format/pattern from the schema. The description never says that jobId identifies the cleanup job to cancel, whether it must be active, or how to obtain it (e.g. from cleanup_start/cleanup_status).

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 names a verb and resource ("Отменить оставшуюся очистку" = cancel the remaining cleanup), which is more than a tautology. But with siblings like neurover_cleanup_pause, neurover_cleanup_status and neurover_cleanup_step, it never explains what distinguishes cancelling from pausing, so an agent cannot route confidently among them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of prerequisites (a running cleanup job), no contrast with cleanup_pause, and no note about what happens to already-completed cleanup steps. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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