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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutating action ('Cancel') but does not explain consequences such as whether the run is irreversibly stopped, whether resources are cleaned up, whether confirmation is needed, or what happens to in-flight work. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and immediately identifiable as an action statement. It loses one point because the imprecise 'active' qualifier is not clarified, but overall it is well-sized.

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?

The tool has three optional parameters and an output schema, but no annotations and no usage context. The description does not explain how to choose between run_id and cursor_agent_id, what 'active' means in this context, or what side effects cancellation has. For a mutating tool, this is incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and the schema adequately describes run_id, cursor_agent_id, and agent. No additional insight is needed, but none is offered.

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 states a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('TeamShared Cloud Agent run'), making the basic action clear. However, the qualifier 'active' is slightly misleading because the schema allows specifying a run_id or cursor_agent_id for a particular run, not necessarily the active one. Still, the core purpose is unambiguous and distinct from sibling agent_run_* tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agent_run_status, agent_run_followup, or agent_run_hitl_decide. It does not describe prerequisites, side effects to check before cancelling, or situations where cancellation would be appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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