cancel_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It states the effect ('mark it as cancelled') and the return structure (previous_status, new_status). However, it does not disclose side effects, irreversibility, or permission requirements, which are relevant for a cancellation operation.

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 succinct and well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the action is front-loaded. No redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what the tool does, the required argument, and the expected return. It is complete enough for a straightforward cancel operation, though it could mention preconditions (e.g., run must be in progress).

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 provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains that run_id is 'the run_id to cancel', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's title 'Run Id'. It clarifies the role of the parameter but lacks additional context like format or constraints.

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 action ('Cancel a running test') and the specific outcome ('mark it as cancelled'), which is a distinct operation from sibling tools. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the verb and resource are specific enough to avoid confusion.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage (when you need to cancel a running test) but does not state prerequisites, limitations (e.g., cannot cancel completed tests), or mention any related tools.

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