cancel_deployment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Cancel') but doesn't explain what 'cancel' entails (e.g., whether it stops the deployment immediately, if it's reversible, what permissions are required, or any side effects). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 complexity of a cancellation operation (a potentially destructive action), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like reversibility, permissions, or response format, which are crucial for safe and effective use. This leaves significant gaps in contextual understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'deploymentId' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't specify format or source for the ID). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 the action ('Cancel') and target ('a running deployment'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'restart_deployment' or 'redeploy_service' among the sibling tools, which would require explicit differentiation for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'restart_deployment' or 'redeploy_service', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the deployment must be running). It implies usage for canceling deployments but lacks explicit context or exclusions, resulting in minimal guidance.

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