ci_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 of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the high-level action. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., terminating jobs, marking as failed), whether the operation is asynchronous, idempotency, permission requirements, or behavior when the run is already completed. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 with no wasted words, but it is extremely terse. It is concise without being complete; while it earns its place, it under-delivers on essential context that other dimensions penalize.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly with full confidence. It lacks parameter semantics, cancellation edge cases, and behavioral details, leaving an agent to guess at important constraints.

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 compensate by explaining any parameters. run_id is required but its meaning as a CI run identifier is only inferable from the name. The optional repo and project_path parameters are ambiguous—likely repository context, but the description gives no guidance on their purpose or whether they are needed.

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 a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('a running workflow run'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ci_trigger_build, ci_wait_for_run, and ci_get_logs by the action it performs. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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, such as when a run should be stopped, whether it can cancel non-running runs, or what to do if cancellation fails. There are no exclusions, prerequirements, or sibling comparisons.

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