live_cancel_scenario_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It explicitly reveals that the tool force-detaches the currently-executing flow's tab and interrupts an in-flight step, which is a notable side effect. This is transparent about the destructive nature of the 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 concise, consisting of two sentences, and directly addresses the tool's purpose and behavior. It is well-structured with no redundant information, though it could be slightly tighter by removing the em-dash clause.

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?

The description covers the primary action and key behavioral consequences, but it does not mention the expected outcome (e.g., run status changed to canceled) or whether the run record remains available. Given that there is no output schema, some additional context about the result would improve completeness, but the description is adequate for basic usage.

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?

The description mentions runId but does not clarify what it represents or how to obtain it, which is especially problematic because the schema lacks a description for runId. Project and session are already described in the schema, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning.

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 that the tool cancels a still-running scenario run by its runId, and provides specific behavioral details (stops before next flow, force-detaches tab) that distinguish it from related cancel tools like live_cancel_run and live_cancel_suite_run.

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 usage for scenario runs by naming the tool and describing scenario-specific behavior, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. The behavioral detail about stopping before the next flow and force-detaching the tab gives enough context for correct selection.

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