cancel_hex_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Cancel' but doesn't clarify if this is destructive (e.g., irreversible), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or details error conditions. The mention of 'Success message' hints at output but lacks specifics, leaving significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first ('Cancel a running project'), followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but misses behavioral details like side effects or error handling. For a cancellation tool, this leaves room for improvement in guiding safe and effective use.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It specifies that 'project_id' is 'The UUID of the Hex project' and 'run_id' is 'The UUID of the run to cancel', clarifying the nature and format of these parameters, which compensates well for the schema's lack of 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 clearly states the action ('Cancel') and target ('a running project'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_hex_run_status' or 'run_hex_project', which would require mentioning it specifically stops execution versus monitoring or initiating runs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the run must be in progress), exclusions (e.g., cannot cancel completed runs), or refer to sibling tools like 'get_hex_run_status' for checking status first, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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