cancel_flow_run

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable context: it uses an unofficial Microsoft endpoint labeled unsupported, with behavior that may change. This exceeds the annotation by warning about stability and support, helping the agent manage expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action. It includes the endpoint, required flag, parameter list, and a warning—all essential. The parameter list is slightly redundant with the schema, but the overall structure is efficient and not bloated.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the endpoint, how to enable it, parameter guidance, and a stability warning. It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists, and the operation is straightforward. The main gap is lack of explicit permission requirements, but that is common across siblings.

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 100%, with each parameter already documented (e.g., 'Run id (from list_flow_runs)'). The description merely restates parameter names and required/optional status without adding new semantics, so it does not elevate beyond the schema baseline.

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 tool's purpose: 'Cancel an in-progress run'. It uses a specific verb ('cancel') and resource ('run'), and includes the endpoint for precision. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like resubmit_flow_run or delete_flow.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (on in-progress runs) and notes that it is disabled by default with a required flag. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide when cancellation is appropriate.

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