cancel_package_build

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the destructive scope (FMonitoredProcess::Cancel(true) kills the whole process tree, including spawned UBT/cooker children) and the no-op fallback behavior.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the return shape. The internal API reference (FMonitoredProcess::Cancel(true)) is slightly implementation-detail-heavy but still earns its place by clarifying destructive scope.

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 zero-parameter destructive operation, the definition covers safety (via annotations), destructive scope, no-op fallback, and return values. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters to document and the description adds nothing further on this dimension, which 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Cancels the in-progress package build.' Its purpose is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like start_package_build and get_package_build_status, though the description doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 parenthetical '(if one is running, honest no-op otherwise)' implies the usage context and tells the agent what happens when no build is active. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings or prerequisites (e.g., checking get_package_build_status first).

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