ros2_action_cancel_goal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the core action and does not disclose cancellation semantics, possible failure modes, whether cancellation is synchronous, or what happens if the goal is no longer executing.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a brief Args block. It is easy to scan, though the parameter lines offer minimal additional value.

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 simple two-parameter cancellation tool, the core purpose and inputs are present. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, an agent is missing context about cancellation behavior and how the goal identifier relates to a previously sent action goal.

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 description must compensate. It provides only 'Name of the action' and 'Identifier of the goal to cancel,' which add little beyond the schema's titles and do not explain how to obtain a goal_id or what format is expected.

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 starts with 'Cancel an executing ROS2 action goal,' which clearly states the operation (cancel) and the resource (action goal). It is easily distinguished from siblings like ros2_action_send_goal, so an agent can tell what this tool is for.

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 word 'executing' implies this tool is for active goals, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it. The intended context is inferable but not stated.

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