Cancel Flow Run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important state constraint (terminal states cannot be cancelled), but omits other behavioral traits like idempotency, permission requirements, side effects, or what state the run transitions to upon cancellation.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first establishes the action and valid targets, second establishes the exclusion constraint. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on the invocation constraint (terminal states). It covers the essential business logic needed to use the tool correctly, though with no annotations, a brief note on the resulting state transition would strengthen completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage (flowId, runId, environment all documented). Per rubric guidelines, this establishes a baseline of 3. The description text adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific action (Cancel), target resource (flow run), and valid states (running or waiting). It effectively distinguishes this tool from the numerous sibling 'get' tools and from 'resubmit-flow-run' through the specific verb and state constraints.

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 explicit negative constraints ('Cannot cancel flows already in a terminal state'), which helps the agent avoid incorrect invocations. However, it lacks explicit positive guidance on when to prefer this over 'resubmit-flow-run' or prerequisites for use.

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