Cancel a Monitor run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the run-state precondition (queued or running) but says nothing about what happens to partial results, whether the cancellation is reversible, or failure modes for an already-finished run.

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 short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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?

A destructive mutation with two undocumented, required string identifiers and no output schema. Annotations cover the safety dimension, but the description leaves the id-versus-runId relationship unresolved, so an agent could easily pass the wrong value.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and two required identifiers, the description must carry the burden of explaining parameters. It never disambiguates which ID is the Monitor and which is the run — the single most important ambiguity an agent faces when calling this tool.

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 and resource (cancel a Monitor run) and narrows scope to 'queued or running'. That is enough to distinguish it from siblings like cancel_crawl and cancel_batch, though it never contrasts itself with pause_monitor/resume_monitor, the closest non-cancel 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?

'Queued or running' implies the valid states for cancellation, which is mild when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer pause_monitor over cancellation, nor any prerequisite (e.g., required permissions or ownership) for the call.

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