Cancel Ennodia run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: cancellation cascades to child tasks, Judges, and Result Advisors, which an agent could not infer from the annotations or the single-parameter schema. It stops short of stating post-cancel run state or what happens if the run already finished.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource and immediately following with the scope of the effect. No filler.

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 single-param mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies the key missing piece (cascade scope). It does not describe the post-cancellation response or error behavior for an already-completed run, but nothing essential to invoking it is absent.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents runId as 'Run ID returned by ennodia_run.' The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (cancel) and resource (run) plus the cascade scope: active child task, Judge, or Result Advisor. That scope detail makes it clearly distinct from ennodia_run and ennodia_get_run, though no sibling is named explicitly, which is what would push this to 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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. run must be in progress), and no mention of alternatives such as ennodia_get_run for inspecting a run instead. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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