Cancel Study Run

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

Annotations already convey that this is destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance by clarifying that cancellation is a request and that 'requested' and 'confirmed stopped' are distinct states, implying an asynchronous or multi-step lifecycle. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences, with the key action upfront and the important state distinction immediately after. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not explain the cancellation flow, how to confirm the eventual stopped state, or what side effects occur. The state distinction is a useful start but could be more actionable.

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%, and the description does not mention run_id at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory to a degree, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation by explaining what run_id refers to, how it should be obtained, or any constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('request') and a clear resource ('cancellation' of a study run), and it distinguishes the requested state from a confirmed stopped state. It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like update_run or get_study_run, but the core intent is unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as launch_study_run, get_study_run, or update_run. The state distinction hints at usage context but does not explain prerequisites, follow-up steps, or which sibling handles confirmed stopping.

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