dynamic_workflow_cancel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: cancellation only applies to non-terminal workflows and requires exact optimistic concurrency. However, it does not reveal what happens on a revision mismatch, what side effects occur, or any operational constraints beyond the annotation hints.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and packs two meaningful qualifiers into minimal space. There is no filler or repetition.

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 complex, destructive operation with 9 required parameters, zero schema parameter descriptions, and no usage guidance, one sentence is not enough. The agent lacks information about how to obtain refs, what session_receipt and host_role mean, and how this cancellation differs from sibling workflow controls. The output schema helps with return values, but not with correct invocation.

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% across 9 required parameters, so the description must carry the semantic burden. It explains the meaning of 'exact optimistic concurrency' (expected_revision), but leaves opaque parameters like host_binding_ref, session_receipt, and host_role completely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate all required fields.

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 ('non-terminal workflow'), with a specific qualifier ('exact optimistic concurrency') that distinguishes it from generic workflow tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling cancel tools like cancel_workflow_run, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'non-terminal workflow' implies a precondition, but there is no mention of when not to use it, how it differs from cancel_workflow_run, or what qualifies as non-terminal.

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