Cancel a run

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

Annotations only give idempotent/destructive/openWorld hints; the description goes well beyond them by spelling out the item-level consequences: never-submitted items become failed (cancelled) so later runs can process their keys, possibly-submitted items route to review, and nothing is ever resubmitted. That is exactly the 'what gets destroyed' context the annotations cannot express.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and precondition, followed by the state-transition consequences. No filler and every clause carries information.

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, no-output-schema operation it covers preconditions and downstream effects well. The remaining gap is the runId source/format, which is the one thing an agent needs before it can actually invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 0% and the single required runId parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never says what a runId is, where to obtain it (run_list), or what format it takes, so it fails to compensate 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 (cancel a run) plus the state precondition (paused or interrupted) and the outcome (permanent stop). It also names the sibling run_resolve as the downstream handler for ambiguous items, which lets an agent separate this from resume/repair 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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('when it cannot be repaired'), which is real when-to-use guidance, and points to run_resolve for the review path. It never states the inverse condition (use run_resume when the run is repairable) or when not to cancel, so it stops short of a 5.

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