cancel_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full disclosure burden. It fails to explain behavioral traits such as whether cancellation is graceful or forceful, whether partial results are preserved, if the operation is reversible, or required permissions.

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 single sentence is perfectly front-loaded with the action verb and contains no wasted words. 'Running' and 'NONMEM' each provide essential qualifying context that distinguishes this tool's scope.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable context to identify the tool's function. However, it lacks important contextual details about the consequences of cancellation (data retention, side effects) that would aid an agent in making informed invocation decisions.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single 'job_id' parameter, the schema already documents the input adequately. The description does not add syntax details, format specifications, or guidance on how to obtain valid job IDs, meriting the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cancel') with a clear resource ('NONMEM job') and state ('running'), distinguishing it from siblings like submit_run, check_run_status, or list_runs. It precisely identifies the domain and action.

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 'running' implicitly indicates this is for active jobs only, providing minimal context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus letting jobs complete naturally, and does not mention prerequisites (e.g., job ownership requirements) or alternatives.

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