github_cancel_workflow_run

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description does add value beyond annotations by disclosing governed routing, that Spring verifies the claimed effect, and that writes resume via an `approval_ref`. However, the actual operational behavior of canceling — what happens to the run and any side effects — is not disclosed.

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 compact and scannable, with a clear bullet-list layout and no filler. Every line serves a purpose, though the opening line is a redundant restatement of the tool name and could be cut without loss.

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 destructive operation with an opaque `arguments` JSON, the description omits the core operational semantics: what identifies the run to cancel, whether the run must be in a particular state, and what the cancellation does. The governance and approval scaffolding is well covered, but the actual GitHub behavior and required payload contents are left for the agent to guess. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be documented, but the input semantics gap is significant.

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%, so the description must carry the full burden, and it does give each of the 7 parameters a one-line semantic gloss (e.g., `project_id`: Authenticated Project UUID; `idempotency_key`: Stable business-action identity). But the pivotal `arguments` parameter is only described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' — it never reveals the GitHub-level fields (owner, repo, run_id) an agent must supply, leaving the most important parameter opaque.

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 opening sentence, 'Github connector operation `cancel_workflow_run`', restates the tool name without defining what the operation does functionally. It never states the actual effect — e.g., that it stops an in-progress GitHub Actions workflow run — so it reads as a tautology of the name rather than a purpose statement.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not differentiate from relevant siblings like `cancel_workflow_run`, `github_rerun_workflow_run`, or `github_dispatch_workflow`, nor does it state preconditions such as the run needing to be in progress. The 'Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority' line is a routing constraint, not usage direction.

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