Cancel 2ools build

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds important behavioral details: completed versions are not deleted and terminal builds remain unchanged. This clarifies the extent of the destructive action and aligns with the idempotent hint.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by essential scope and alternative guidance. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers the action, scope, non-destructive aspects, and alternative tool. Minor gaps like immediate effects of cancellation are not critical but could add completeness.

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 coverage is 100% and the job_id parameter is fully described in the schema as 'Build job ID returned by build_from_conversation.' The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool cancels a queued or running non-Agent 2ools build, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from cancel_agent_run by noting that governed Agent execution should use that alternative.

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 clear usage context: use for queued or running builds, not for terminal builds, and explicitly points to cancel_agent_run as the alternative for governed Agent execution. This gives both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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