Stop JevRelay Run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The word 'Request' adds mild value by implying cancellation may be asynchronous rather than immediate, but the description doesn't say whether the stop is graceful, forced, or idempotent, nor what happens to in-flight work.

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 zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse given the destructive nature of the operation.

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 one-parameter mutation with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. But for a destructive stop operation it omits what 'cancellation' actually entails (immediate vs. graceful, effect on partial runs), leaving an agent with real gaps.

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 0% and the single required parameter (runId, a UUID) is never referenced in the description. With low coverage the description should compensate by explaining what runId identifies, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema's type/format constraints.

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 ('Request cancellation') and resource ('running JevRelay automation'), which clearly distinguishes it from the run/status/validate siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the intent is 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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'a running JevRelay automation' — the agent can infer this applies to an active run. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as jevrelay_status for checking state first.

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