cancelWorkflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Cancel' implies a destructive/mutative action, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether cancellation is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects related resources, or what happens to workflow data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (destructive operation), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral implications, parameter meanings, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'workflowId' represents (e.g., format, source) or what 'reason' is used for (e.g., optional note for audit). With 2 undocumented parameters, the description fails to provide necessary semantic context beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('Cancel') and target ('a workflow instance'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'suspendWorkflow' and 'resumeWorkflow' by indicating termination rather than pausing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives in the text itself.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'suspendWorkflow' or 'resumeWorkflow'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., workflow must be active) or exclusions (e.g., cannot cancel completed workflows). It merely states what it does without indicating appropriate scenarios.

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