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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine extra context beyond that: the 'without applying a pending revision' clause tells the agent that a pending revision is discarded rather than committed, which the annotations do not express.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the safe-cancel action leads and the pending-revision caveat follows immediately.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the affected states and the effect on pending revisions, which is what an agent needs to invoke it. It stops short of explaining post-cancel state or behavior when the run is already terminal.

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?

There is one required parameter (run_id) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema contributes no meaning. The description only implies the run is 'one of your' runs and never states the run_id format or where it is obtained (e.g., from get_editor_run or list results), so compensation for the coverage gap is partial.

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+resource ('cancel ... Switch Editor runs') with the eligible run states enumerated, so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like approve_editor_run or cancel_my_task, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 implies when it is usable by listing the run states (queued, running, approval-waiting), which is real context. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., approve_editor_run for approval-waiting runs), leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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