notebook_cancel_run

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

The description essentially restates the action reflected in the destructiveHint annotation and the tool name. It adds no context beyond that, such as whether cancellation is asynchronous, irreversible, or has side effects on already-computed results.

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 or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to conveying the action and target resource.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple destructive cancellation tool, especially with annotations and fully documented parameters. However, it does not mention post-cancellation behavior or how to verify the run was successfully cancelled, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 each parameter having a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema already documents workspaceId, notebookId, and jobInstanceId.

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') with a clear resource ('a running notebook execution'), and the name 'notebook_cancel_run' matches. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like notebook_run and notebook_get_run_status, as well as pipeline_cancel_run and copy_job_cancel_run.

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 implies its use case: cancel a notebook run that is currently executing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as notebook_get_run_status for checking state or notebook_run for starting a run.

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