cancel_run

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the cancellation is understood as destructive. The description adds the 'active' constraint and uses 'request' to hint at possible asynchronous semantics, but it does not disclose whether cancellation is reversible, whether it requires special permissions, or what happens to the process after the request.

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 description is a single, tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and the resource, and every word contributes to meaning without redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with destructive annotations, this is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention what the response will be, whether cancellation is asynchronous, or how the active condition is enforced. These missing details reduce confidence for an agent invoking the tool without further inspection.

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 does not compensate by explaining run_id, its format, or how to obtain it. While the parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, the low coverage means the description should provide at least some annotation of the ID's role and provenance; it does not.

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 states a specific verb ('cancel') and resource ('Antigravity worker process'), and the 'active' qualifier narrows scope to running runs. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_run, continue_run, and cancel_team, even without extra context.

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 word 'active' implies this tool is meant for currently running run processes, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it mention checking run status with get_run or using continue_run for resuming. There are no clear exclusions or alternative routing.

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