cancel_execution

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. It states the action ('Cancel') and return ('Success status'), but lacks critical details: whether cancellation is reversible, permission requirements, side effects (e.g., on related resources), or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by brief sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value, and there's no redundant information, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the return note into the main description.

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 (a mutation with no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action and parameter, but gaps in behavioral transparency and usage guidelines make it insufficient for optimal agent operation, especially compared to siblings like 'execute_query'.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema: it explains that 'execution_id' refers to 'the execution ID of the running query,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides basic context but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions (e.g., format or source of the ID).

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('ongoing query execution'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'archive_query' or 'delete_table' which might also involve termination operations, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that an execution must be running), exclusions, or relationships to siblings like 'get_execution_status' for checking status before cancellation, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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