agy_cancel

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar. The description does add real value by framing this as a 'request' (cooperative, not guaranteed immediate) and by restricting scope to runs owned by this server instance, but it says nothing about what state the run ends in or what the caller should do afterward.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action and the ownership constraint stated up front. Nothing is padded or repeated from the 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 one-parameter tool with full annotations and no output schema, this covers the essentials: what is cancelled and which runs are eligible. The only gap is the asynchronous outcome — whether the call returns immediately or blocks until the run stops.

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 0% for the single run_id parameter, so the description must compensate. It partially does by implying the value must identify an *active* run owned by this server instance, which constrains valid inputs, but it gives no format details or error behavior for unknown/finished run IDs.

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?

States a specific verb ('request cancellation') and resource ('an active run') with a scope qualifier ('owned by this server instance'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like agy_status or agy_run, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: cancel a run that is currently active. There is no explicit when-not to use it, no mention of checking agy_status first, and no guidance on what to do if the run already finished — leaving the agent to infer.

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