cancel_playground_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds context about scope and error cases but does not disclose whether cancellation is irreversible or if it triggers asynchronous effects. More detail on side effects would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise, two sentences plus a scope line, with no wasted words. Action and key constraints are front-loaded.

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?

Adequate for a simple tool with 2 required params and no output schema. Covers purpose, scope, and a key error condition, but lacks explanation of side effects, idempotency, or how to obtain the IDs.

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 0% and the description adds no information about the parameters 'competition_id' and 'run_id'. The agent must infer from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 the resource 'pending or running Playground run'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like submit_playground_run and get_playground_run, and no other cancel tool exists.

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?

Explicitly states scope requirement (playground.write) and error condition for already-terminal runs (RUN_NOT_CANCELLABLE, 409), guiding when not to use. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives.

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