cancel_pipeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action 'Cancel a running pipeline'. It does not mention side effects (e.g., canceling associated jobs), irreversibility, permission requirements, or whether the pipeline must be in a specific state, leaving a significant transparency gap for a mutating 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. Every word earns its place and directly conveys the operation and target.

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 schema lists zero required parameters and the description does not state that project_id and pipeline_id are necessary to identify the target. With no annotations or output schema and a misleading pipeline_id description, the definition leaves an agent without enough operational context to invoke the tool reliably.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail; notably, the schema's pipeline_id description incorrectly says 'The ID of the pipeline to retry', and the tool description only generically clarifies that the action is cancellation. It neither corrects nor deepens the parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('pipeline'), and the qualifier 'running' distinguishes this from retrying a pipeline or cancelling an individual job. It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings such as retry_pipeline and cancel_pipeline_job.

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 usage context is implied: use it when a pipeline is running and you want to stop it. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, such as 'for a single job, use cancel_pipeline_job', which would help disambiguate among the many pipeline-related siblings.

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