cancel_governed_communication_run

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

Annotations already convey mutation (readOnlyHint=false), destructive intent (destructiveHint=true), and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds value by scoping the cancellation to the run and stating that worker execution remains separate, a non-obvious behavioral boundary beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One sentence with no filler: the action, precondition, and the critical worker-execution caveat are all present. The core action is front-loaded and every word 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 cancellation tool, the description covers the main behavior and the important worker-execution boundary, and output schema/annotations fill in safety and return expectations. It does not explain how an agent can determine cancellability or explicitly connect the vague 'Revenue run' wording to the governed-communication run resource, leaving a moderate gap.

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_ref, company_ref, or project_ref roles or formats. The parameter names and titles are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond what the input schema already exposes.

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 gives a specific action ('Cancel') and a specific target ('a cancellable Revenue run'), which clearly distinguishes it from retrieval/creation siblings like start_governed_communication_run and get_governed_communication_run. However, it uses 'Revenue run' rather than the tool's 'governed communication run' terminology, leaving mild room for confusion about the exact resource.

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?

It states the precondition 'cancellable' and clarifies that worker execution is not affected, giving an agent a clear sense of when this tool is appropriate. It does not name an alternative tool for canceling worker execution, so the guidance is context-rich but not fully explicit about when-not-to-use.

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