hex-cancel-run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a mutation and hints at a state constraint via 'active', but says nothing about reversibility, idempotency, whether partial results/outputs survive, permission requirements, or what happens if the run is 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?

A single six-word sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too thin: it omits permissions, failure modes, effect on the run's outputs, and where the two IDs come from. The absence of structured fields elsewhere means the description should be doing far more work.

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 0%, so the schema supplies bare string types for projectId and runId with no format, source, or example. The description's phrase 'an active project run' only loosely restates that a project and a run are involved, adding essentially no meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 (project run) plus a state qualifier (active), so the agent knows this terminates a run rather than starting or inspecting one. It does not name or contrast the closely related siblings hex-run-project, hex-get-run-status, or hex-get-project-runs, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. that the run must be in a cancellable state), and no routing advice relative to hex-get-run-status or hex-get-project-runs. The agent must infer that the 'active' qualifier is a precondition rather than a stated one.

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