Cancel Strategy Run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds critical context beyond annotations: 'terminates the worker and candidate processes.' This discloses the concrete destructive effect, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely brief—two short sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds the key destructive detail. It's front-loaded and efficient, though it could arguably include a bit more context without becoming bloated.

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 an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description covers the core action and the destructive effect. However, it doesn't explain the idempotency_key parameter's role or what happens if the job is already completed, which are relevant for a cancellation tool. The annotations cover safety, but the parameter semantics gap remains.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of what job_id or idempotency_key mean or how they should be formatted. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds zero value beyond the schema. With 0% coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 states a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('queued or running product job'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_strategy_run and get_run_status. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the action is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for queued or running jobs, which gives some context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for completed jobs) or mention alternatives like get_run_status for checking state first. The 'queued or running' qualifier provides partial guidance.

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