Cancel pipeline

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

Although the destructiveHint annotation is true, the description only says 'cancelable jobs' without specifying what happens to the running jobs, their associated resources, and whether cancellation is reversible. It does add context beyond the annotation but lacks explicit behavioral side effects.

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 concise sentence, immediately states the action and target, with no filler.

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?

The tool is straightforward (two scalar parameters) and there is an output schema. However, it does not describe what happens to the canceled jobs or whether there are prerequisites; deeper context would improve.

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 project parameter is described with a helpful 'ID or full path' explanation, so 1/2 parameters get semantic coverage. The pipeline_id parameter lacks a description, but its type is an integer (ID), which is reasonably inferable. Since schema coverage is about 50%, description partially compensates but not fully.

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 states it cancels all cancelable jobs in a specified GitLab pipeline, using a clear verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling cancel_job tool, but the pipeline-level scope is implied.

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 gives the context (running pipeline) but no explicit guidance on when to choose this over cancel_job for single-job cancellation, nor any exclusions based on job state or pipeline status.

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