cancel_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Request cancellation of an active run.' It does not explain whether cancellation is asynchronous, what state the run enters, whether it is reversible, or what failures may occur. The wording 'Request cancellation' hints at a non-guaranteed result but leaves the outcome undefined.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place by providing the essential purpose without unnecessary detail.

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?

For a mutating operation with no annotations and no output schema details visible, the description is too sparse. It omits side effects, response/error behavior, and prerequisites. The phrase 'active run' provides some context but does not address what happens for non-active runs or how cancellation results are communicated.

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?

The schema includes a single required parameter, run_id, and the description adds the qualifier 'active run', implying the run must be in progress. This adds slight semantic meaning beyond the schema. However, the description does not specify the format of run_id or how to obtain it, and schema coverage is effectively 0%.

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 phrase, 'Request cancellation', and identifies the target resource, 'active run'. This clearly conveys what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_run and validate_plan. However, it does not elaborate on the scope of cancellation (e.g., partial vs. full).

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 usage is implied: use when an active run needs to be stopped. However, the description does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. There is no mention of checking run status first or scenarios where cancellation might not be possible.

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