github_cancel_workflow_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It describes the action as 'Cancel a workflow run' but does not mention whether cancellation is reversible, what side effects occur (e.g., notifications), or what happens if the run is not in progress. It also omits any permission or authentication requirements, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about the tool's behavior.

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 succinct, opens with the core action, and lists arguments in a clear format. The argument descriptions are somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall length is appropriate and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and has an output schema, but the description omits important context such as error behaviors, prerequisites (e.g., authentication), and edge cases like canceling an already-completed run. It covers the primary action adequately but leaves gaps that could confuse an agent.

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 'Args' section provides only surface-level explanations such as 'owner: Repository owner' and 'repo: Repository name,' which are largely tautological. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to clarify parameter formats, constraints, or the purpose of session_name in relation to the GitHub session.

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 'Cancel a workflow run that is in progress.' This clearly identifies the action (cancel) and the resource (a workflow run), distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_rerun_workflow or github_trigger_workflow.

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 specifies that the tool applies to runs 'in progress,' providing a clear condition for use. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'in progress' qualifier effectively excludes completed or failed runs, giving clear context without being overly verbose.

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