Cancel a parameter study

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description usefully explains what that destruction concretely means: the current run is stopped, queued runs are skipped, and changed workspace values are restored. It stops short of stating whether already-completed runs' results survive or whether the study can be resumed.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the core action and then enumerates the side effects, with no redundant restatement of the name or title.

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?

With annotations carrying the safety profile, a single optional parameter, and an output schema for return values, the description is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is the ambiguous fate of results from runs that already completed before cancellation.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Study id (default: the latest)'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing about the study identifier or the default-to-latest behavior, which is the correct baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 pairs a concrete verb sequence (stop, skip, restore) with the resource (an in-progress parameter study), so it is clearly distinguishable from cm_study_start and cm_study_status. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and title: an agent can infer this is the tool for aborting an in-progress study. There is no statement of when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g., cm_study_status to check state first) or of any prerequisite conditions.

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