autoflow_cancel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action and target states, but does not mention that cancellation is likely destructive or irreversible, whether partial outputs/assets remain, or what side effects the user should expect. For a cancellation operation, this is a significant gap.

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 focused sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the core meaning. It is appropriately concise for a one-parameter tool.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context for a destructive operation. It does not explain what happens after cancellation, whether cancellation can be undone, or how to avoid cancelling the wrong job when jobId is omitted. The schema covers the parameter, but the behavioral context is incomplete.

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%, so the schema already documents the jobId parameter and its default behavior when omitted. The description adds context that the job is a generation job, but does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond that. Baseline 3 is 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Cancel'), names the resource ('generation job'), and scopes it ('running or queued', 'in Google Flow'). It clearly communicates what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like autoflow_clear_queue.

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 intended use is implied: cancel a running or queued generation job. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over autoflow_clear_queue, when omitting jobId is appropriate, or what the user should expect if multiple jobs are active. The parameter schema provides some of this, but the description itself does not.

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