sf_cancel_deploy

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Cancel a running deployment', but doesn't disclose side effects such as irreversibility, what happens if the deployment has already completed, or whether confirmation is required. The presence of a 'confirm' boolean parameter is not mentioned at all, which is a significant omission.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately states the key identifier. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content. This is appropriately concise for a simple cancel operation.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite incomplete. It doesn't explain what the response will be, how to handle errors (e.g., job not running), or the meaning of the optional parameters. While the core action is clear, the tool's usage context is insufficiently specified for an agent to invoke it confidently in a complex scenario.

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 for parameter meaning. It only explains 'deploy job id' (mapping to jobId), but leaves 'confirm', 'directory', and 'targetOrg' completely unexplained. Even though jobId is the only required parameter, the other parameters' purpose and format are entirely absent from the description, offering minimal value over the raw 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 clearly states 'Cancel a running deployment by deploy job id', which uses a specific verb (cancel), identifies the resource (deployment), and names the key parameter (deploy job id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy, validate, and get status. However, it doesn't explicitly reference alternatives or ceding conditions, so it lacks a bit of differentiation beyond the name.

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 when a deployment is running and needs to be cancelled, but it provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool references. It doesn't mention that a deployment must be active or that other tools like get_deploy_status might be used first to obtain the job id or confirm the state.

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