cancel_deploy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it only adds the fact that queued deploys are also cancellable. It says nothing about whether cancellation is graceful, whether it is irreversible, what happens to a partially rolled-out deployment, or what authorization is required. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the qualifier about deploy state is placed immediately after the action so nothing is buried.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to identify the action. It leaves out the outcome of cancellation and any post-cancel state, which an agent would want before invoking a mutation with no annotations to fall back on.

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% for the single 'deploy_id' parameter, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema states, which makes the baseline 3 correct.

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?

A specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('deploy') with an added state scope ('running or queued') that tells an agent exactly which deploys qualify. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like 'rollback' or 'stop', so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Running or queued' implies the precondition for calling it, so an agent can infer it applies to in-flight or pending deploys rather than completed ones. However, it never names alternatives such as rollback (for reverting a finished deploy) or stop (for halting a service), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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