request_run_cancellation

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, but the description adds the key behavioral trait that cancellation is cooperative and the host owns interruption. This explains the interaction model beyond what annotations convey.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences. Every word earns its place, communicating the core action and a key behavioral constraint without any waste.

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?

The description is adequate for a basic understanding but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a run_id and expected_revision), relationship to acknowledge_run_cancellation, and what success or failure looks like. An output schema exists, which helps, but gaps remain.

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 provides no information about run_id, expected_revision, or reason. expected_revision in particular is non-obvious and goes unexplained, failing to compensate for the lack of schema docs.

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 the tool requests cancellation of a run, with 'cooperative' adding a specific scope. It distinguishes from siblings like acknowledge_run_cancellation by implying a request instead of an acknowledgment, though it could be more explicit about the flow.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pause_host_run or acknowledge_run_cancellation. The description implies cooperative cancellation is different, but does not state conditions or exclusions.

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