Cancel a running pipeline

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that steps are killed in place and half-written artifacts remain half-written, and that the operation is reversible via restart. This gives the agent a realistic model of non-atomic cancellation behavior.

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?

Three short sentences with each earning its place: the action, the side-effect, and the recovery option. The main behavior is front-loaded, and there is no tautology 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?

With a full output schema, complete parameter documentation, and annotations already declaring idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, and the schema already explains that number is the per-repository pipeline counter and repo_id is numeric with lookup/list guidance. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and target—'Stops a pipeline that is pending or running'—and the closing 'can be restarted afterwards' separates cancellation from a permanent delete. It clearly identifies the resource and state to which it applies.

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 'pending or running' qualifier gives a clear state-based condition for use, and 'can be restarted afterwards' implies cancellation is preferable when the pipeline is not to be permanently removed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like delete_pipeline, so it misses the top bar for explicit routing.

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