cancel_pipeline

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

The description discloses the write nature, risk level, prior reading of pipeline state, irreversibility, and dry-run option. No annotations existed to contradict, and the description adds valuable behavioral context.

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 well-structured with a tag, concise statement, behavioral paragraph, and parameter list. It is not overly verbose, though the 'Reads the pipeline first' detail could be considered extra.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, side effects, and parameter details adequately. Missing return value info is acceptable due to missing output schema.

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 0%, but the description's Args section provides meaningful explanations for all 4 parameters, including project, pipeline, dry_run, and target, which the schema only gives titles and types.

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 explicitly states 'Cancel a running pipeline' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like retry_pipeline, which retries instead of cancels.

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 context on when to use (cancel a running pipeline) and includes a caution about irreversibility. It does not explicitly mention alternatives but implies the tool is for canceling, which is clear enough.

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