cancel_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like whether cancellation is irreversible, requires permissions, or what side effects occur (e.g., deleting intermediate data). The description is too brief to convey safety or impact.

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 extremely short (3 words) and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified; conciseness should not sacrifice necessary detail. It could be improved by adding context without excessive length.

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?

Given the complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, sibling tools with similar actions), the description is incomplete. It does not specify what distinguishes cancel from reject_workflow, nor does it clarify the parameter's purpose or the output schema's return values.

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 0% and there is only one parameter ('params') with an anyOf type allowing object or null. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't explain what 'params' should contain (e.g., workflow ID, reason) or its format.

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 'Cancel a workflow' clearly states the action and resource (cancel + workflow). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'reject_workflow' or 'confirm_workflow', which could have overlapping semantics. It is not a tautology but lacks specificity about what 'cancel' entails compared to 'reject'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use cancel vs reject_workflow, or any prerequisites (e.g., workflow must be in a cancellable state). The description does not mention context or alternatives.

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