cancel_ramps

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description is consistent with that. It adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: 'The parameter stays wherever the ramp had taken it,' meaning cancellation freezes the current value rather than reverting it — an important behavioral detail for a mutation tool.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no wasted clauses. Both sentences carry information an agent needs.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool whose annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness, the description is nearly complete: it covers scope and post-cancellation state. It could note whether the parameter must currently have an active ramp, but nothing critical is missing.

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% for the single parameter, and the schema already states 'omit to cancel all'. The description reiterates that semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (cancel) and resource (ramp) and defines the scope precisely: one parameter's ramp, or all active ramps when omitted. The distinction from the sibling ramp_parameter is inferable (cancel vs. create) but never named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies usage via the omit-to-cancel-all rule, which tells the agent when to pass the parameter and when not to. It does not name an alternative tool (e.g. ramp_parameter) or state prerequisites, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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