Cancel all workflow runs

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description goes further, disclosing exactly what stops (contacts halt mid-flow, scheduled steps do not run) and that confirmation is requested. This is the kind of side-effect detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Bold-labeled, front-loaded sections let an agent scan purpose, exclusions, return, and side effects in order. Each line earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description discloses the return value ('number of executions cancelled') and covers destruction semantics, prerequisites, and pre-execution confirmation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this safely is missing.

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 100% for the single 'id' parameter (Workflow UUID), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource with explicit scope ('Stop every in-flight run of a workflow at once'), making the bulk nature of the operation unmistakable versus the singular plunk_cancel_workflow_execution sibling. It also names the sibling it is not by routing agents to plunk_update_workflow for the adjacent concern.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Not for' conditions, and names the concrete alternative (plunk_update_workflow) with the reason to prefer it ('contacts will keep entering after this'). An agent has a complete decision rule without inference.

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