cancel_subagent_run

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

The description uses 'Request cancellation' but does not disclose whether the cancellation is asynchronous, what success/error responses look like, or if there are side effects (e.g., resource cleanup). With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 short and to the point, with no redundant words. However, it lacks structural elements like examples or additional context that could improve clarity.

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 has an output schema (not shown) and zero annotation coverage, the description should provide more details about return values, error handling, or cancellation semantics. It is incomplete for a cancellation request.

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 only parameter 'run_id' lacks any description in the schema or the tool description. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name, failing to clarify format, source, or constraints.

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 resource ('active sub-agent run'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'run_subagent' (creation) and 'revert_subagent_run' (revert).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_task_status' or 'revert_subagent_run'. The purpose is implied but no context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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