cancel_deployment

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It indicates the operation is destructive by requiring --allow-destructive and confirm:true. It also scopes the action to 'in-progress' deployments. Yet it does not explain side effects, the 'fenced' term, or what happens to the deployment afterward, so transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and contains no filler. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and effective.

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?

Considering there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and prerequisites but omits details like the meaning of 'fenced', behavior when the deployment is not in progress, and the return value. It is minimally sufficient for a simple cancellation tool but leaves some gaps for the agent to infer.

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 all parameters. The description adds only minor value by reinforcing that confirm:true is required for destructive operations and that the deployment is identified by UUID. This is a baseline 3 with a small amount of extra context.

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 tool cancels an in-progress deployment by UUID, using the verb 'cancel' and specifying the exact resource type. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy (which starts deployments) and delete_resource (which removes entire resources).

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 gives clear context that the tool is for cancelling in-progress deployments and specifies the required confirm flag and --allow-destructive. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives, keeping it at a 4.

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