Cancel Flow Debug Run

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

Annotations already declare destructive, idempotent and openWorld, yet the description still adds real value: it discloses the cascade to subflows, the read-back, the context-origin refusal guard, and the write-only privilege requirement. The only thing left out is what the read-back returns.

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?

Four short front-loaded sentences with no repetition; the safety guarantee and the permission note are each stated once and in order of importance.

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?

Covers scope, safety, idempotency and privilege constraints for a two-parameter mutation with no output schema. The phrase 'then read it back' gestures at the return shape without fully specifying it, which is the only loose end.

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 the context_id description already points at debug_flow_start and list_flow_debug_sessions, so the schema does the parameter work. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema's 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('End a debug run, and any subflow it stepped into') and explicitly carves itself out from real-flow cancellation ('cannot end a real flow run'), which is exactly the boundary that separates it from the sibling cancel_flow.

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?

Gives clear operating conditions: repeatable, refuses contexts the debugger did not start, and usable under NEX_POLICY_DENY=execute. It stops short of naming the alternatives (cancel_flow, kill_transaction) as explicit 'use this instead' routing.

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