Cancel deployment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It merely states the action without disclosing consequences, required permissions, reversibility, or side effects. For a mutation operation, this lack of detail is a notable gap.

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, clear sentence of eight words. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous details. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core invocation but omits behavioral context such as preconditions, error handling, or outcome confirmation. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for a robust understanding.

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 only a bare 'uuid' string with no description, so the description's 'by UUID' directly clarifies that the parameter identifies the deployment to cancel. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema, effectively compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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), the resource (deployment), the condition (running), and the identifier (UUID). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy or getDeployment, which have different verbs and purposes.

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 phrase 'running deployment' implies that only active deployments can be canceled, giving some usage context. However, no explicit guidance is provided on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., stopApplication) or when not to use it, leaving the when-to-use guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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