Cancel Pipeline Run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that the run must be running, which is mild context. It omits the force-cancel scenario, the 400 rejection on premature force calls, and any idempotency or account-scoping behavior described in the schema.

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 waste. However, its extreme brevity for a destructive operation means it may be under-specified rather than perfectly concise.

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 destructive cancel tool with no output schema, the description should surface the force-cancel nuance and account-scoping behavior that an agent needs before invoking. Those details live only in the schema, leaving the top-level description incomplete. The annotations cover safety but not operational context.

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 coverage is 67%, with the force flag and account header documented in detail inside the schema itself. The description contributes only 'by its ID,' which restates the schema's pipeline_run_id description and adds no new parameter meaning. Since structured fields already do most of the work, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: cancel a running pipeline run, identified by its ID. This is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like start_pipeline or pause_pipeline. It stops short of 5 because it does not clarify the relationship to the force-cancel path or contrast with any sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pause_pipeline or start_pipeline, nor any prerequisite conditions. The description only says it cancels a running run, which the name already implies. No when/when-not information is provided.

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