ncloud_sourcebuild_cancel_build

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with the ⚠️ warning and the 'Destructive' label. It adds critical context about the confirm parameter ('Set confirm=true to execute'), which is not in the annotations and is essential for safe invocation.

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 that includes a warning, the action, and the confirmation requirement. There is zero wasted text, and it is highly scannable for an agent.

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 cancel operation with all parameters documented in the schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: destructive nature and confirmation requirement. The idempotentHint annotation covers repeatability. No output schema is needed for cancellation, and no further context is necessary.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the confirm parameter's role ('Set confirm=true to execute'), which goes beyond the schema's default value description. The other parameters (projectId, buildId) are straightforward and well-documented in the schema.

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 a running SourceBuild build') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like start_build and get_project. The destructive warning adds further clarity about its nature.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when a SourceBuild build is running and needs cancellation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear given the sibling set includes build management tools.

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