supportpages_cancel_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by specifying what this does NOT do ('does not stop processes or delete files') and by disclosing the conditional requirement that a writing run needs stopped=true. It stops short of stating auth needs or reversibility of the release.

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?

Three short sentences with zero padding; the core action and its key constraint are front-loaded and every sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the action, its non-effects, and one prerequisite, but the unexplained run_id/workspace parameters and thin usage guidance leave a small 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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the `stopped` flag's role (required true for a writing run) but leaves run_id and workspace entirely undocumented, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Release a generation run') and immediately clarifies scope with 'Does not stop processes or delete files', which disambiguates it from the 'cancel' connotation and from write-oriented siblings like update_run. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling or contrast with retry_operation, so it stops 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 phrase 'after the host agent has stopped' gives one timing condition and 'A writing run requires stopped=true' adds a conditional prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. update_run vs cancel_run). Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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