bourne_execution_cancel

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds the important qualifier that only the exact job associated with an existing execution is cancelled, not any arbitrary job ID. This clarifies the scope of destructive behavior and distinguishes from potential misuse. It does not, however, describe side effects like irreversibility or downstream state changes, but the annotations already convey the destructive nature.

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 sentence that is entirely front-loaded with the action and scope. No filler words, and the critical constraint ('only the exact scheduler job') appears early. The sentence is compact and information-dense without being verbose.

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 one parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering destructive and persistence behaviors, the description covers the essential aspects of what the tool does and the scope of its operation. It does not mention prerequisites beyond 'existing execution', but that is implied by 'owned by an existing Bourne execution'. Missing details like error behavior (e.g., what happens if the reference is invalid) are not critical given the output schema likely captures responses.

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?

The schema has one required parameter 'reference' with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description implies that 'reference' identifies an existing Bourne execution (since it says 'owned by an existing Bourne execution'), but it does not explicitly state that the parameter is that execution's reference, nor does it explain how to obtain it or its format. The description provides some semantic context but falls short of fully compensating for the missing schema documentation.

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 specifies a concrete verb ('Cancel'), identifies the exact resource ('scheduler job owned by an existing Bourne execution'), and explicitly contrasts with 'arbitrary scheduler job IDs'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling execution tools like bourne_execution_get, bourne_execution_reconcile, and bourne_execution_wait, which handle retrieval, reconciliation, and waiting respectively.

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 the key constraint that only exact scheduler jobs owned by existing Bourne executions are accepted, which implies that cancellation is for executions that are currently active. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention conditions like 'use when you need to stop a running execution'. Such guidance is not present, so the usage context is implied but not explicit.

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