optimization.cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the two-phase behavior (cooperative request, then process-group kill after a grace period) and that 'accepted' and 'termination_confirmed' are distinct outcomes. It still omits whether cancellation is idempotent, what happens to partial results, or permission requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. Minor noise from docstring artifacts (double backticks, stray indentation) but the content is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so the mention of 'accepted' and 'termination_confirmed' correctly focuses on process rather than return format. However, for a destructive, annotation-free mutation it should state irreversibility, permission needs, and the meaning of its two inputs.

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% for two parameters. The description never explains run_id (format, where to get it) or what reason is used for, so an agent gets no meaning beyond the bare property names.

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?

States a specific verb ('Request cancellation') and resource ('a queued or running run'), and scopes which runs are eligible. It does not name or contrast with any sibling (e.g., list_runs to find a run_id, get_result to inspect status), so differentiation is inferable but not explicit.

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 phrase 'queued or running run' implicitly excludes completed runs, which is a useful usage boundary. But there is no guidance on when to cancel versus poll with get_result, no prerequisites about who may cancel, and no mention of how to obtain run_id.

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