cancel_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'Cancel a running workflow' but does not reveal whether the cancellation is destructive, irreversible, whether it loses progress, or if it is synchronous. This is a significant gap for a cancellation operation.

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 an ultra-short single sentence, front-loaded with the verb. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 tool has one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain return values, post-cancellation behavior, or how to verify the cancellation (e.g., via get_workflow_status). Given the tool's simplicity, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important contextual details.

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 has one required parameter, run_id, but the description provides zero parameter information (schema description coverage is 0%). The description does not explain what run_id represents or how to obtain it, despite the parameter name being somewhat self-explanatory. The description should at least hint that run_id identifies the workflow to cancel.

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 target resource ('a running workflow'). It distinguishes itself from sibling workflow tools like trigger_workflow, get_workflow_status, and rerun_failed_jobs, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like waiting for the workflow to finish or using rerun_failed_jobs. The description does not mention any prerequisites, side effects, or situations where cancellation is appropriate.

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