build_cancel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'Request cancellation'. It does not disclose whether cancellation is asynchronous, whether it is idempotent, what happens if the build already finished, or whether the operation is reversible. The word 'request' adds slight nuance but leaves major behavior unstated.

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 an efficient single sentence with no filler; the core action and target are front-loaded. It loses a point only because it is so terse that it omits useful context, though brevity itself is a strength.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It identifies the action and target but omits return behavior, error conditions, and side effects, leaving an agent to call it without knowing what to expect.

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 compensate. It does not explain build_id's format, origin, or how it relates to build_project, aside from the implicit link to a 'running build'. The parameter name is self-descriptive, but the description adds little over the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Request cancellation') and a clearly distinguished resource ('a running build'). This differentiates it from siblings like build_project and build_progress_status, which start or monitor builds rather than cancel them.

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 cancellation is appropriate, when it is not (e.g., completed or failed builds), or what alternative should be used. It only implies the target must be a running build.

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