axint.run.cancel

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint and readOnlyHint; description enhances by specifying 'kills active Axint child process groups' and 'no network' effects, adding valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with a brief effects note. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose and usage.

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 full schema coverage, annotations, and presumed output schema, description covers purpose, usage, effects, and parameter context adequately. No gaps for a cancellation 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 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds minimal value for parameters (only mentions 'latest or selected' for id, which aligns with schema default). No further detail on cwd or format beyond 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?

Clearly states the verb 'cancel' and resource 'Axint run', specifying scope as 'latest or selected'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'axint.run' and 'axint.run.status' by mentioning child process groups and timeout survival.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when xcodebuild or a UI-test runner survived an MCP timeout or transport close') and limits usage to 'stop an active Axint run or stuck child process group'. Provides clear context but no explicit alternatives.

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