edgegate_cancel_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect of freeing the single active-run slot and the error condition (409 for terminal runs). It does not explicitly state whether cancellation is irreversible or return behavior, but for a cancel operation this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two tightly constructed sentences: the first states action and outcome, the second gives a use case and an error condition. No filler, front-loaded with the verb, and every sentence adds value.

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 cancel tool with 2 required params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, a motivating scenario, and an error case. It is self-sufficient and gives an agent enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 50%: run_id has a descriptive schema comment, workspace_id has none. The description adds context about the non-terminal condition and slot freeing for run_id, but workspace_id remains undocumented. The description partly compensates but does not fully clarify both parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('a non-terminal run'), plus the key consequence ('freeing the workspace's single active-run slot'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rerun or run_gate, and the scope (non-terminal only) is explicit.

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?

It provides concrete when-to-use guidance: a behavioral-gate run left queued waiting for a device that never reports back, which would otherwise block new runs. It also gives an exclusion criterion via the HTTP 409 note ('if the run is already terminal'), preventing misuse on terminal runs.

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