cancel-workflow-run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, covering the destructive nature. The description adds only the 'running' state constraint, which is useful but does not explain irreversibility, permission requirements, or consequences. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 direct sentence with no filler. The verb and target are front-loaded, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 simple three-parameter cancellation operation, the schema and destructiveHint cover the essential arguments and risk profile. However, the description omits usage context, validity conditions, and any indication of the response behavior. It is adequate but not complete.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage and all are required. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the schema already carries the semantic weight. 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel a running GitHub Actions workflow.' The action is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling tools like trigger-workflow or get-workflow-run. The minor use of 'workflow' rather than 'workflow run' is acceptable given the tool name.

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?

Provides no guidance about when this tool should be used versus alternatives, when cancellation is valid, or whether there are prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is the word 'running,' which is not elaborated.

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