cancel_workflow

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

The description discloses important behaviors: queued/dispatched steps are marked CANCELLED, completed steps are not reversed, and billing only for completed steps. This adds value beyond annotations (idempotentHint true) and does not contradict them.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence provides necessary detail without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 the presence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, the description fully covers the cancellation semantics, step handling, and billing impact. It is complete for an AI agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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 input schema covers the sole parameter (workflow_id) with 100% description coverage. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool cancels an in-progress workflow, specifies behavior for steps (queued/dispatched marked CANCELLED, completed not reversed), and mentions billing implications. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_workflow or get_workflow_status.

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 implicitly tells when to use (to cancel an in-progress workflow) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest checking status first. It provides clear context without exclusions.

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