action_cancel

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys the mutation intent ('cancel') and that it targets running actions, but says nothing about what state the action ends in, whether cancellation is idempotent, error behavior for already-finished actions, or permission requirements.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope. Nothing redundant; every word carries weight.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter, the description is far too thin. It lacks behavioral, safety, and parameter detail an agent needs to invoke it 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 coverage is 50%, and the description adds zero parameter context. The 'action' parameter is undocumented anywhere, and the 'runtime' parameter's meaning ('Project runtime to address...') is defined but not clarified further. With an undocumented required parameter, the description should compensate but does not.

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 ('cancel') and resource ('currently running non-interactive action'). The 'non-interactive' qualifier usefully scopes it, distinguishing it from interactive actions, though sibling tools like stop/action_run aren't referenced to sharpen the boundary.

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 word 'Explicitly' hints that this is distinct from something implicit, but the description never says when to use this versus stop, down, or action_run, nor does it state prerequisites. No when/when-not guidance is provided.

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