ncloud_cancel_pipeline

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'running' qualifier, which is useful context, but does not describe side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the execution already completed. No contradiction with annotations.

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 understanding the tool's function.

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 simple cancellation tool with two well-documented parameters and supportive annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks details about response format or behavior on non-running executions, but the 'running' qualifier and idempotency hint cover the main edge cases.

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% and both parameters include descriptions (projectId as 'Pipeline ID' and historyId with source hints). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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 clearly states the action ('Cancel') and the exact resource ('running SourcePipeline pipeline execution'). It is distinct from sibling tools like ncloud_sourcebuild_cancel_build or ncloud_sourcedeploy_cancel_deploy because it names SourcePipeline explicitly.

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 implies when to use it (when canceling a running SourcePipeline execution) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases. No reference to sibling tools such as ncloud_sourcebuild_cancel_build, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing among cancel operations.

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