jobs_runs_cancel

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing idempotency ('no effect if already completed'). Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description clarifies that calling on a completed run is harmless. No contradictions.

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 sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (cancel a run) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the primary effect and safety reassurance without needing to explain return values.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the schema itself documents 'run_id' but not 'timeout_seconds'. The description adds no parameter information. Since the tool is simple and parameter purposes are inferable, this is adequate but not enhancing.

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 ('Cancel') and resource ('a run'), clearly stating the action. It also distinguishes from siblings like 'jobs_runs_cancel_all' by focusing on a single run and noting idempotency ('no effect if already completed').

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 for canceling a specific run but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., jobs_runs_cancel_all) or when not to use it. No exclusions or context are given.

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