Cancel Run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping fact that it targets a simulation "started for this source path," but says nothing about what is destroyed, whether stopping is synchronous, or whether partial results survive.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably terse given the mutation semantics involved.

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 destructive, non-idempotent operation in a large simulation toolset, the description is thin: no output/return behavior, no interruption semantics, and no linkage to run_simulation or cancel_batch. Annotations cover the safety angle, so this is barely adequate rather than deficient.

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 coverage is 50% – workspace_root is documented, source_path is not. The description's reference to "this source path" clarifies that source_path identifies the run to cancel, adding useful meaning beyond the bare schema for the required parameter.

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?

States a specific verb ("Stop") and resource ("a simulation started for this source path"), so an agent can identify the target run clearly. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like cancel_batch, leaving the run-vs-batch distinction to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative named. The agent is left to guess whether this applies to only running simulations, what happens if none is active, or how it relates to cancel_batch.

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