Cancel Pipeline Run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is covered structurally. The description adds the useful constraint that only running or queued runs are cancellable, but says nothing about reversibility, whether in-flight tasks are killed, idempotency, or the two-phase force retry documented only 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a destructive operation rather than true tightness.

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, 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description omits what happens after the call (resulting run status, whether polling get_pipeline_run_status is needed), the required 'CANCELLING'-then-force sequence, and any permission context. The agent is left to reconstruct the operating procedure from the schema and sibling names alone.

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 67% and the schema itself is unusually thorough, spelling out the 'force' semantics (must already be CANCELLING or a 400 results) and account-scoping rules for the header. The description contributes only 'by its ID', which merely restates the required pipeline_run_id, so it neither compensates for nor detracts from the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (cancel), a specific resource (pipeline run), and the qualifying state scope ('running or queued') plus the lookup key (by its ID). That is enough to separate it from delete_pipeline, pause_pipeline, and cancel_agent_session_prompt, though it never names a sibling or boundary 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?

No when-to-use guidance beyond the vague state qualifier. It does not say how this differs from pause_pipeline, whether the cancellation is the intended replacement for pause, or when the two-phase force flow applies. The agent must infer all routing decisions from the sibling list.

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