workflow_cancel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only says 'request cancellation' and does not state whether the operation is asynchronous, idempotent, or what effects it has on the running workflow. For a mutating workflow operation, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 appropriately concise for a one-parameter tool, though slightly more behavioral context could have been included without harming clarity.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, this is minimally adequate. The main missing piece is information about what happens when the cancellation request is made or how the response should be interpreted, which an agent may need for reliable use.

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%, and the workflowId parameter is documented as 'Workflow identifier to cancel'. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the schema already covers what the agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 specific verb ('request cancellation') and identifies the resource ('running workflow'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is also easily distinguished from sibling tools like workflow_status, which is about checking status rather than canceling.

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 provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workflow_status or workflow_orchestrator. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as verifying the workflow is running, or of situations where cancellation should not be attempted.

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