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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and earns credit for disclosing that queued runs are cancelled while running runs are only sent a cooperative cancellation request. It does not cover error cases or side effects, but the core non-guaranteed behavior is stated.

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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence with no filler, repeated claims, or redundant restatements of the title. Every clause adds either the resource or the cancellation behavior.

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 two-parameter cancellation tool, the description covers the key queued-versus-running behavior and the output schema exists, but it leaves parameter semantics and usage context unaddressed. It is adequate but not complete without annotations.

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 0% and the description names neither run_id nor reason. An agent cannot learn from the description what reason means for cancellation or how run_id should be obtained/used, so the prose adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Cancel' and names the exact resource: a queued run or a running worker-backed Swarme capability run. It adds state detail that distinguishes cancellation from the status/run siblings.

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 makes clear that both queued and running runs are valid targets and that running runs receive only a cooperative cancellation request. It does not name alternatives, exclusions, or conditions for preferring another tool, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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