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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent, open-world), the description discloses best-effort cancellation behavior, the possibility that a finishing run may still complete, and the need to follow llmContext guidance in results. This adds meaningful behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action, and every sentence adds value: the scope, the best-effort caveat, and the llmContext instruction. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

With a complete parameter schema, an output schema present, and annotations indicating destructive/idempotent behavior, the description covers the essential operational semantics: what can be canceled, the best-effort outcome, and the finishing-race caveat. Nothing critical is missing for making the call correctly.

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 already documents all three parameters thoroughly, including source of runId, enum constraints on environment, and workspace restrictions. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('classify run'), and further specifies the scope as 'queued or in-flight'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cancel_extract_run or delete_classify_run, at least by domain and operation intent.

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 for when cancellation applies ('queued or in-flight') and a practical caveat ('a run already finishing may still complete'). It does not explicitly name alternatives such as delete_classify_run or other cancel_* tools, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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