Cancel ai tracking run

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to add context like what gets halted, whether cancellation is undoable, and how run_id/retry keys behave. Instead it offers opaque phrases ('preserve immutable revisions, explicit budget consent') that don't clarify the effect of a cancel and add little over the annotations.

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?

It is short, but it is not front-loaded: the actual action never appears, and the three sentences are jargon-heavy clauses that don't earn their place. The negative 'does not start an automatic paid baseline' is filler that consumes space without conveying usable information.

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 a rich AI-tracking sibling set, the description should explain cancellation semantics (idempotency, state transition, relation to retry keys), but it omits all of this. The schema covers inputs fully, yet the behavior of the operation remains unexplained, leaving an agent unable to predict the outcome.

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 100% and both params (project_id, run_id) are fully documented with patterns in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifiers or their scope beyond what the schema already states.

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 says only 'Manage project-scoped AI tracking', which never identifies the actual action (canceling a run). The specific verb+resource exists only in the tool name/title, so the text is essentially a vague restatement of the namespace rather than a purpose statement. It does not distinguish itself from create_ai_tracking_run, retry_ai_tracking_run, or get_ai_tracking_run.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of sibling alternatives such as retry_ai_tracking_run or get_ai_tracking_run. The only scoping sentence ('does not start an automatic paid baseline') is a confusing non-exclusion that doesn't tell an agent when to pick this tool.

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