acknowledge_run_cancellation

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

All annotation hints are false, providing no safety signals. The description adds a key behavioral trait: 'make cancellation terminal,' implying irreversibility. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or consequences beyond that, so it only partially carries the burden.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but minimal, and could be expanded with more useful context without losing its 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?

Given three required parameters, an output schema, and a large sibling toolset, the description is insufficient. It lacks usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and outcome details beyond 'terminal,' making it difficult for an agent to understand the cancellation workflow and when to invoke this tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the three required parameters (run_id, expected_revision, host_receipt_id). The description does not mention or explain any of these parameters, leaving the agent without semantic context for what they mean or how they relate to the operation.

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 ('acknowledge') and resource ('host interruption') and states the effect ('make cancellation terminal'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like request_run_cancellation and pause_host_run, though it could elaborate on what 'terminal' means.

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 implies usage in the context of a host interruption acknowledgment, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. With 25 siblings, only implicit guidance is given.

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