environment_cancel_publish

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds the 'ongoing' scoping, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects, failure behavior when no publish is ongoing, or whether cancellation is partial or full. 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and the key scoping term 'ongoing' is included without extra verbosity.

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 cancellation tool with two well-documented ID parameters and destructive annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention what happens if no publish operation is ongoing or describe the outcome of cancellation, but these are minor gaps given the tool's low complexity.

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 100%, with both parameters described as 'The workspace ID' and 'The environment ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and a specific resource ('environment publish operation'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from related siblings like environment_publish and environment_delete by targeting an in-progress publish operation.

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 word 'ongoing' implies the tool should be used only when a publish operation is already in progress, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it reference alternatives such as checking publish status or waiting for completion.

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