Cancel Pipeline

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

The description only states 'cancel a running pipeline' without elaborating on side effects (e.g., does it stop all jobs? Is the pipeline recoverable?). Annotations confirm it's not read-only, but no additional behavioral context is added.

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 concise (5 words) but sacrifices completeness. While front-loaded, it lacks essential details about parameters and usage, making it less efficient for correct tool invocation.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and two parameters, the description is insufficient. It should at least mention the required parameter and provide a minimal usage context to ensure the agent can call 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the required 'pipeline_id' or optional 'project_id' parameters. The agent has no guidance on what values to provide or how they affect the operation.

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 clearly states the action (cancel) and the resource (a running pipeline). It easily distinguishes from sibling tools like gitlab_retry_pipeline or gitlab_create_pipeline. However, it does not specify whether it cancels the entire pipeline or individual jobs, which could cause ambiguity.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., retry pipeline, pause job) or mention any prerequisites or consequences.

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