cancel_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Request safe cancellation.' It does not explain whether the cancellation is asynchronous, idempotent, reversible, or what 'safe' concretely means. The use of 'Request' hints at a non-forceful operation, but critical behavioral traits are left unstated.

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 definition is very short and front-loaded, with no filler or redundancy. However, the terseness comes at the cost of crucial semantic context, making it borderline under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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 lack of annotations and the sparse description, the definition is incomplete for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly. The output schema may cover return values, but the description does not clarify when cancellation is valid, what side effects occur, or how the request is processed by the Job Registry.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the run_id parameter at all. While the single parameter is somewhat self-explanatory from its name, the description provides no additional meaning about accepted formats, constraints, or how the run_id relates to the Job Registry.

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 states a specific action ('Request safe cancellation') and a resource context ('through the Job Registry'), which makes the tool's core purpose reasonably clear. It is distinct from its siblings, which focus on starting, planning, validating, or inspecting runs rather than cancelling them. However, it never explicitly mentions 'run' in the description, relying partly on the tool name and schema.

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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state conditions such as which run states are eligible for cancellation or whether this is preferred over other stop mechanisms. Usage is only weakly implied by the words 'safe cancellation' and the tool name.

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