bulk_cancel_workflows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'Sets each workflow's status to CANCELLED' and 'Each workflow will stop executing at its next step boundary.' This goes beyond a simple 'cancel' and explains mutation and execution behavior. It could mention prerequisites or failure modes, but the given details are useful.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a behavioral explanation, an Args list, and a Returns list. Each section earns its place, providing essential information without fluff. It is appropriately sized for a bulk operation tool with three parameters.

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 description covers the tool's function, behavior, parameters, and return values ('message' and 'count'). It does not mention authentication requirements or potential partial-failure scenarios, but these are common to the tool family. Given the presence of a return schema and the clarity of execution semantics, the description is largely complete. A small gap is the lack of note about prerequisites like login, but this is not critical.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's 'Args' section explains each parameter: application_name is 'Name of the DBOS application', workflow_ids are 'IDs of the workflows to cancel', and cancel_children is 'Also cancel child workflows started by these workflows (default: false)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles and fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Cancel multiple workflows at once.' This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from the sibling 'cancel_workflow' (single cancellation). The scope is explicitly batch, which differentiates it effectively.

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 context by stating 'Cancel multiple workflows at once,' making it clear this is for bulk operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use cancel_workflow for a single workflow') or exclusions. The context is clear, but exclusions are absent.

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