seedfast_run_cancel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers. It discloses the destructive nature ('destructive action against the run'), the non-rollback side effect ('partial inserts already written... NOT rolled back'), the non-error return path for terminal states, and the auth requirement ('Does not require SEEDFAST_API_KEY'). This is exemplary disclosure for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: core action, return behavior, destructive side effect, usage condition, auth note, and next step. The most important safety information (destructive, no rollback) is front-loaded before usage guidance. No fluff 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return values and behavior — it does ('Returns a text line confirming cancellation, or... a message that it is not cancellable'). It also covers the side effects, when to use, auth, and the follow-up call. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% — the single runId parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'Run ID returned by seedfast_run.' With full coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides. This is appropriate; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Requests cancellation of a pending or running seeding operation.' The description distinguishes itself from siblings like seedfast_run_status by describing the unique no-error behavior for terminal states, which clearly separates it from status-checking and other run-management tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use only when the user explicitly asks to stop a run or when a runaway operation must be aborted.' It also implies when-not by disclosing that completed/failed/cancelled runs are not cancellable, and routes the agent forward with 'Next: call seedfast_run_status to confirm the final state.' No ambiguity about when this tool applies.

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