Cancel a worker run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value by clarifying the mechanism — 'appends a cancel request' — telling the agent this is a soft/cooperative cancellation rather than a guaranteed immediate kill. It omits what happens if the run is already running, whether the request can be revoked, and any permission requirements.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the mechanism parenthetically appended. No wasted words, though it is arguably under-specified rather than concise.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description should explain return behavior (e.g., whether a cancel request ID is returned) and how it relates to sibling cancellation tools. It covers intent only, leaving the agent without enough to invoke confidently.

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 only 33% — the required 'id' and the 'jobId' parameter have no descriptions anywhere, only regex patterns that do not explain their meaning or relationship. The description contributes nothing about parameters, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a 3-parameter 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 queued/submitted run') and scopes it to queued/submitted states, which is more precise than the title alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling ris_cancel_job, so an agent reading only this description cannot confidently choose between the two.

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 'queued/submitted run' implies the applicable state condition, which is useful implied guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer ris_cancel_job or ris_hold_job instead.

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