atlas_cancel_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares the operation idempotent, zero-cost (P2), discloses that in-flight model calls are not force-killed but waited out or timed out, and explains the lock-based immediate finalization for paused/interrupted runs. This is unusually rich operational disclosure.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by compact state-machine details. Dense but every sentence adds behavioral information; 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the state-transition semantics are thoroughly covered. The only real gap is parameter documentation, especially the unexplained 'reason' field.

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% and the description never mentions either parameter. run_id is inferable from the name, but the 'reason' parameter is completely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent no guidance on its format or purpose.

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 opening clause states a specific verb and resource ('请求取消一个运行' / request cancellation of a run), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like atlas_resume_run and atlas_run_workflow. The scope is unambiguous.

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 state-conditioned guidance: terminal states (done/failed/cancelled) return conflict, running defers to the next node boundary, and paused/interrupted finalize immediately. This tells the agent when the call is meaningful, but it never names alternatives such as resume or get_run for related tasks.

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