gitlab_cancel_pipeline

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations, such as 'In-flight jobs will be interrupted' and that cancelling a finished pipeline is a no-op. This complements the destructive hint without contradicting annotations.

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 concise, with the main purpose in the first sentence. It uses a short paragraph structure, includes a clear example, and avoids unnecessary detail. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's complexity (2 parameters, simple behavior) and the presence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, side effects, and provides a concrete example, leaving no ambiguity.

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% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (pipeline_id and project_path). The description does not add extra semantic 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 clearly states 'Cancel a running pipeline' and specifies that in-flight jobs are interrupted. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like gitlab_retry_pipeline by noting that cancelling a finished pipeline is a no-op.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (to cancel a stuck or running pipeline) and when not to (for finished pipelines). It also directs the user to gitlab_retry_pipeline as an alternative, fulfilling the when-to-use/alternatives criteria.

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