cancel_run

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

With no annotations provided, the burden is on the description to disclose side effects. It does reveal that the reason is stored in engine history, which is useful. However, it does not explain whether the cancellation is irreversible, what happens to the underlying process, how long the operation takes, or what error conditions may occur.

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?

Two short, focused sentences: the first states the operating directly, and the second adds a meaningful side effect. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 simple cancellation tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate for basic invocation—it identifies the action and one key behavioral effect. However, it omits practical caveats such as whether the run must be active, whether cancellation can be undone, and what happens to related resources, making it not fully complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters, and the description adds no extra parameter-level detail. 'process_instance_id' and 'reason' are named but never explained in context, so the agent receives no additional guidance beyond raw field names and the default value.

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 clear verb and object—'Stop a running release'—which makes the tool's action unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_release and retry_run. However, the description refers to a 'release' while the tool name says 'run', and it does not explicitly name any sibling to distinguish from, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 the tool should be used when the agent needs to stop a running release, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as retry_run or conditions like 'only works on active runs', leaving the selection logic to inference.

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