Cancel deployment

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, covering the destructive nature. The description adds 'running' as a qualifier, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects on other resources, or whether the cancellation is reversible. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the description contributes limited extra value.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no unnecessary words or filler, achieving maximum efficiency.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks detail on expected outcomes, error conditions, and any post-cancellation state. The presence of annotations covers the destructive hint, yet the description does not explain what success looks like or when the deployment is considered 'running'.

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%, so the description must compensate for explaining the 'uuid' parameter. It only repeats that the operation is 'by UUID', adding minimal meaning beyond the parameter name. No guidance on format, lookup methods, or constraints is provided.

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 'Cancel a running deployment by UUID' uses a specific verb ('cancel'), identifies the target resource ('deployment'), and scopes it ('running', 'by UUID'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'deploy' or 'getDeployment'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., stopApplication, redeployProject). It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative scenarios. The simple context implies usage for cancelling an ongoing deployment, but no comparative guidance is given.

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