cancel_pipeline_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It simply states 'Cancel a running CI/CD pipeline' without mentioning side effects such as cancellation of associated jobs, irreversibility, required permissions, or idempotency. Given this is a destructive operation, the description is notably underspecified and fails to disclose important behavioral traits.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable. This is appropriately concise for a simple action tool.

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 is simple (2 params, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so return-value documentation isn't needed. However, given the lack of annotations and the destructive nature of the operation, the description provides insufficient context about when to use it (e.g., only for running pipelines, not for retries) and what happens after cancellation. It fails to address potential pitfalls, making it incomplete for an agent to safely invoke.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, with clear descriptions ('Project ID or path' and 'Pipeline ID'). The description adds no extra parameter context beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline is 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting; no additional value is added by the description.

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 a running CI/CD pipeline.' It uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and a clear resource ('CI/CD pipeline'), and effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like retry_pipeline_tool, delete_pipeline_tool, or cancel_job_tool. The purpose is immediately understandable without ambiguity.

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 indicates the tool is for cancelling a *running* pipeline, which implies it should not be used for already completed or failed pipelines. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., cancel_job_tool for individual jobs). While the context is clear, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, so it doesn't meet the top bar.

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