vm_cancel_ttl

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's [WRITE] tag is redundant but consistent. It adds the detail that cancellation 'prevents auto-deletion', which clarifies the effect. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, error conditions, or the requirement that a TTL must exist.

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 concise: a single sentence with a [WRITE] prefix and a bulleted Args section. Every word adds value, no fluff. Front-loaded with the action type.

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 has only one required parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema (though not shown), the description adequately covers the core functionality. It could be improved by mentioning edge cases (e.g., what if VM has no TTL?), but overall it provides sufficient context for a simple mutation.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'vm_name', but the description clearly defines it as 'Name of the VM whose TTL should be cancelled', adding essential meaning beyond the schema's title 'Vm Name'.

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 it cancels an existing TTL for a VM, using the verb 'Cancel' and specifying the resource 'existing TTL for a VM'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vm_set_ttl (which sets a TTL) and vm_list_ttl (which lists TTLs).

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only explains what the tool does, but does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or comparison with siblings like vm_set_ttl.

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