ncloud_sourcedeploy_cancel_deploy

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 'ongoing' scoping, clarifying that only active deployments can be canceled, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like side effects on deployment history or whether cancellation is reversible.

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 redundant information. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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, two clearly documented parameters, and rich annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It would benefit from stating what happens upon cancellation (e.g., whether the deployment history marks it as canceled), but the core context is present.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies since 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Cancel') and the specific resource ('ongoing SourceDeploy deployment'), distinguishing it from related deployment tools like start/approve/reject. It is a specific verb+resource pairing with no ambiguity.

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 word 'ongoing' implies the tool is for canceling in-progress deployments, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives (e.g., other cancel operations). Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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