flow_cancel

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether cancellation is asynchronous, irreversible, requires the job to be in a specific state, or affects logs and artifacts—important considerations for a state-changing 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and immediately parseable while still conveying the core operation.

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?

The tool is simple, has only one required parameter, and an output schema exists, so the description is close to sufficient. However, it omits cancellation side effects and lifecycle preconditions, which makes it only minimally complete for a state-changing command with no annotations.

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 description (0% coverage), but the description at least clarifies that job_id refers to a running Flow job. It does not explain how to find the job_id or what values are valid, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific action ('Cancel') on a specific resource ('a running Flow job'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like run_flow and flow_status without needing to read the schema.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, how to obtain a valid job_id, or what preconditions must hold. The description only names the action and target, leaving the agent to infer the entire usage context.

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