cancel_build

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions cancelling a running build but does not specify side effects, error conditions (e.g., if build already completed), or permission requirements. The return value description is minimal.

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 notably short and structured with argument and return sections. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections add little value given the schema and output schema, so it is efficient but not exceptional.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is complete in terms of operation identification but lacks context about when cancellation is possible, effects on builds, or error scenarios. The output schema exists, so return details are not required, but usage scenario guidance is missing.

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?

The description only restates the parameter name ('The build identifier') without adding any meaning beyond the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 build') and the platform ('Codemagic'). It uses a specific verb-resource pair, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like start_build or get_builds.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a build might be uncancellable or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not the context for invocation.

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