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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real context beyond them: the terminal-state rule ('work already finished stays finished'), the concrete consequence ('no complete restore point'), and required scopes (runs.operate, backups.operate). It doesn't address retry/idempotency behaviour on repeated calls, which the non-idempotent annotation leaves open.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the purpose stated first and the operational caveats following. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 single-parameter destructive mutation, the agent gets the verb, the affected resources, the terminal-state semantics, the downstream effect on restore points, and the required permissions — with no output schema needed to explain returns.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already points to list_data_runs as the source of the UUID. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (cancel) plus the exact resource set it acts on (running backup, restore or clone), which cleanly separates it from retry_data_run, get_data_run and list_data_runs. The parenthetical mapping to `ankra runs cancel` adds an unambiguous anchor.

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?

Restricts scope to a *running* run and clarifies that finished work cannot be un-finished, which tells an agent when this is and isn't applicable. It never names the sibling alternatives (retry_data_run for re-running, list_data_runs for discovery) explicitly, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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