Cancel Flow

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds irreversibility by stating 'the flow will be permanently cancelled and cannot be resumed'. This goes beyond the annotations and provides critical behavioral context. No contradiction exists between description and 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 compact: two sentences plus a bolded important warning. It is front-loaded with the action, followed by usage guidance, then the critical destructive caveat. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff.

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 destructive tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the what, when, and the irreversible consequence. It does not describe return values, but the tool is simple and annotations already convey the safety profile, so the overall context is sufficient.

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%, so all three parameters (reason, instance, context_id) are fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the role of context_id but adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which fits the 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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Cancel a running or paused flow execution by its context ID', which clearly states what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling flow tools like execute_flow and get_flow_context_status by focusing on the cancellation action and the method (context ID).

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?

It explicitly lists use cases ('no longer needed, is stuck in a waiting state, or was started by mistake'), giving an agent clear contexts for invoking the tool. It does not mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, but the context is unambiguous.

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