wes_cancel_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It does not disclose whether cancellation is asynchronous, if confirmation is needed, whether it is destructive (e.g., cannot be undone), or what the final state of the workflow will be. Minimal transparency.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences plus parameter listing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple cancel action with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it could be improved by mentioning that the workflow must be currently running and what the result or response indicates (e.g., success confirmation).

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%, but the description's Args section adds basic meaning to the run_id parameter by stating it is 'the workflow run identifier to cancel'. However, it lacks format details or examples, so it only marginally compensates for the schema gap.

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 action ('Cancel') and the resource ('a running workflow'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like wes_run_workflow (submit) and wes_get_run_status (status query).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_run_status) or any context about prerequisites, such as ensuring the workflow is actually running. The usage context is entirely implicit.

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