cancel_workflow_run

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool stops active or approval-waiting workflows, but it does not state whether cancellation is irreversible, idempotent, or what side effects occur for dependent tasks. This is a meaningful gap for a cancellation operation.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes either the action, the target scope, the valid states, or the rationale.

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 one-parameter cancellation tool with an output schema, the description is minimally viable: it states what the tool does and when it is appropriate. Still, the absence of parameter semantics and behavioral side effects leaves notable ambiguity for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 explain what workflow_run_ref should be, its format, or how to obtain a valid value. The phrase 'scoped running or approval-waiting workflow' hints that the ref identifies an active run, but it does not compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 a specific action ('Stop') on a specific resource ('scoped running or approval-waiting workflow') and gives a rationale ('to bound cost and work'). It is not a tautology and reads as a distinct cancellation operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similarly named sibling tools.

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 implies when the tool is useful: for running or approval-waiting workflow runs that need to be stopped for cost or resource reasons. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of completed or failed runs, and no alternatives such as rerunning or inspecting the run first.

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