Cancel Build

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so 'This is a write operation' merely restates structured data and adds no value. The description omits genuinely useful behavioral context: whether cancellation is reversible, what happens to a build already completed or queued, what state the build ends in, and any permission requirements.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, but the second sentence duplicates the readOnlyHint=false annotation rather than earning its place. Short but not maximally efficient.

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 mutation tool with only a readOnlyHint annotation and no output schema, the description should cover side effects, reversibility, and error conditions (e.g., cancelling a non-running build). None of this is present, leaving the agent uncertain about the consequences of invocation.

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 100%, so buildtarget, build_number, and project are all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the correct baseline when the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 and resource ('Cancel a running build'), which is unambiguous against siblings like start_build or get_build. It does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives, but the destructive verb makes the distinction obvious.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., build must be actively running), and does not reference alternatives such as letting a build finish naturally. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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