cancel_assignment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool voids an assignment and releases any lease, which is meaningful. However, it does not mention other potential side effects, irreversibility, or downstream impacts on contracts or workflows.

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 extremely compact, with the eligibility constraint, purpose, rationale, and a key side effect all packed into one sentence. Every word earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has five required parameters with zero semantic guidance and no annotation coverage. The description gives useful context about when to cancel, but it is not enough for an agent to correctly construct a valid invocation; parameter meaning and expected values remain unclear.

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% and the description does not explain any of the five required parameters beyond implying a reason. assignment_id, actor_id, actor_role, base_revision, and reason are all undocumented in both the schema and description, so an agent cannot determine their meanings.

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 clearly states the tool voids an assignment, with a specific verb and resource, and adds the typical use case of a mistake or dropped scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling supersede_assignment, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 clear context: this is integrator-only and intended for voiding assignments due to mistakes or dropped scope. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternatives like supersede_assignment, so it lacks exclusions but still gives usable guidance.

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