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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description explains immediate effects on waiting/queued nodes, the intermediate 'cancelling' state while running nodes drain, the eventual 'cancelled' state, and that running work is not necessarily interrupted nor effects rolled back. It also discloses the authorization requirement (run owner or organization admin).

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 front-loaded with the core cancellation behavior and eligibility, then proceeds through node draining, eventual state, limitations, and authorization. Every sentence contributes relevant operational context for a destructive tool.

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 destructive annotation, full schema coverage, and absence of an output schema, the description covers the needed behavioral, authorization, and follow-up information thoroughly. There are no obvious gaps for an agent to call this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the three parameters are already documented by the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning such as reason usage or ID sourcing, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Request cancellation of a ... workflow run') and explicitly distinguishes eligible statuses from rejected ones. It also points to the sibling tool get_workflow_run for observing completion, making the tool's role clear without opening any schema.

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?

It states exactly which run statuses may be cancelled and that any other status is rejected with conflict. It also names get_workflow_run as the follow-up observation tool, leaving little ambiguity about when and how to use this tool.

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