cancel_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the action without detailing side effects, permissions, or whether cancellation is immediate or reversible. This is minimal information beyond the action itself.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains zero wasted words. It conveys the verb and object clearly without filler or repetition.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the run must be running), what happens after cancellation, or potential errors. Sibling tools like run_and_wait and get_run_status suggest a workflow, but this description does not position itself within that 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?

The input schema has two required parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention either parameter. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning and fails to compensate for the lack of 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 uses the specific verb 'cancel' and identifies the resource 'Hex project run', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_project or get_run_status. It unambiguously states the action.

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 context 'running' implies the tool should be used when a project run is in progress and needs to be stopped. However, no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned.

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