github_actions_force_cancel_workflow_run

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. 'Force cancel' implies an aggressive termination but lacks details on side effects, prerequisites (e.g., permissions), or what 'force' entails. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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?

At three words, the description is extremely concise and front-loaded. However, it may be too terse and could benefit from a brief explanation of 'force' to aid understanding.

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?

Given three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal and lacks crucial context such as when force cancel is appropriate, typical return values, or error conditions.

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%, so the schema already documents the three parameters (owner, repo, run_id). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, achieving the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Force cancel a workflow run' clearly states the verb ('force cancel') and the resource ('workflow run'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cancel_workflow_run' by implying a more forceful action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the regular 'cancel_workflow_run' tool. There is no mention of use cases or exclusions.

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