notebook_run_cancel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Cancel' implies mutation, but nothing is said about whether cancellation is graceful or forced, whether partial outputs are kept, whether the call is idempotent, or what happens for an already-completed run — all material for a destructive operation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with no redundant or filler content. Every word contributes to identifying the target operation.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema this is minimally adequate: purpose and the source of run_id are clear. However, with no annotations the description should have covered at least the effect of cancellation and its behavior on already-finished or unknown runs.

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 schema already documents run_id as 'Run id returned by notebook_run'. The description restates this provenance but adds no format, constraint, or example beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (cancel) and resource (background notebook run), and ties the target to notebook_run as its originator, so an agent can tell it apart from notebook_run_status or notebook_run itself. It does not explicitly name a sibling it must not be confused with, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 phrase 'started by notebook_run' implies the prerequisite that a run must already exist and that only background runs are cancellable. There is no explicit guidance on checking notebook_run_status first, nor any statement of when cancellation is inappropriate (e.g. already-finished runs), so usage is only implied.

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