cancel_pipeline_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic action, 'Cancel a running pipeline job,' but does not explain side effects, whether cancellation is forceful or graceful, whether it can be undone, or how the API reacts to a non-running job. This is minimal coverage 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 contributes to identifying the operation and the resource it acts on. It is concise without being overloaded.

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 tool is a mutating operation with no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters none of which are marked required. The description does not clarify which parameters are needed for a successful call, what the force flag actually changes, or what response the agent should expect. This leaves significant gaps for an agent attempting to use the tool correctly.

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%, and the schema already documents force, job_id, and project_id with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel a running pipeline job.' It clearly identifies the target as a pipeline job, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancel_pipeline, which cancels an entire pipeline. This is immediately actionable and unambiguous.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cancel_pipeline, retry_pipeline_job, or play_pipeline_job. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether a job must be in a particular state, or what to do if the job is not running. Usage context is left entirely to the agent to infer from the tool name.

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