Cancel Patronus Run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the run is irrevocably terminated), auth requirements, or what happens to run data. It only states the action and that a confirmation message is returned.

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 very concise and well-structured, with a one-sentence summary followed by Args and Returns sections. There is no redundant or unnecessary content.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose, parameter, and return value, and an output schema exists. However, it lacks behavioral depth such as side effects and required run state, making it minimally sufficient but with clear gaps.

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 schema provides no description for run_id (0% coverage), but the description adds 'Patronus run UUID', clarifying the format and purpose. This compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 the resource ('Patronus run'), with a specific scope ('dry run or safe merge'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_patronus_run and put_patronus_dry_run.

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 phrase 'running Patronus run' implies the tool is for active runs, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage is largely implied rather than stated.

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