force_cancel_subagent_run

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the destructive nature (terminating the whole process group when owned by this process), the no-op with owner reporting when another process owns it, and the INTERRUPTED close-out when the owner is gone. This is rich, essential context for a forceful operation.

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 three short, purposeful paragraphs: first states the core function, second gives usage triggers, third explains behavioral outcomes. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description thoroughly explains the tool's role within the broader lifecycle, including ownership semantics and three possible branches. The output schema likely handles return values, so no further description is needed. For a cancellation tool with significant edge cases, this is fully complete.

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 input schema has one required parameter, run_id, with only a 'Run Id' title and no description. The tool description does not mention run_id at all beyond referencing 'a run' generically, so it adds no semantics about ID format, validation, or usage. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 'Cancel a run that plain cancel_subagent_run cannot reach,' which uses a specific verb, identifies the resource (a run), and clearly distinguishes this from the sibling cancel_subagent_run. It immediately conveys the tool's unique purpose as a fallback escalation.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: after cancel_subagent_run reports the run is unknown, or when a run has been non-terminal for too long. It also explains the three ownership scenarios and their outcomes, giving the agent clear context for when to invoke this tool and what to expect.

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