cancel_run

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 mentions the tool cancels runs 'in progress or queued', which implies mutation but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or what happens post-cancellation. 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every word earning its place.

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 as a mutation operation, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool correctly in context with siblings.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (owner, repo, run_id) with descriptions. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how to obtain a run_id or format the owner/repo. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and target ('a workflow run that is in progress or queued'), providing a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'rerun_failed_jobs' or 'rerun_workflow', which might involve similar contexts but different actions.

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, such as 'rerun_failed_jobs' or 'rerun_workflow', nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a run to be in a cancellable state. It only states what the tool does, not when it should be used.

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