openmausbot_cancel_run

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

The annotations include destructiveHint=true, but the description does not elaborate on the destructive nature of the action. It does not mention any side effects, such as whether canceling a run is irreversible, whether it affects the routine's future schedule, or whether it requires special permissions. With annotations present, the description adds little beyond the annotations, and for a destructive tool, more transparency would be expected.

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 very short, only 6 words. It is concise, but the structure is overly brief to the point of being vague. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information (that it cancels a run), but it does get to the point quickly. The brevity is not a problem itself, but the ambiguity from the word 'Plan' detracts from its effectiveness.

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 tool with only 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'dry_run' does, which is a key parameter with a default of true, nor does it clarify the difference between canceling a run and other related tools. The output schema exists, so return format is not a concern, but the description lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., does the run need to be in a certain state?) and what exactly cancelling means for the routine.

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 schema describes 'run_id' as 'Exact routine run id' and 'dry_run' with a default of true. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. Coverage is 50%, but since both parameters are documented in the schema, the description does not need to compensate much. However, it would be helpful to explain the effect of 'dry_run' (e.g., whether it simulates the cancellation) and how to obtain a valid run_id.

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 'Plan or cancel one routine run' is somewhat vague because it mentions both 'Plan' and 'cancel' while the tool is specifically named cancel_run. It does state the resource (routine run) and implies the action, but it is ambiguous about whether the tool also plans runs, which could confuse agents. Sibling tools like openmausbot_plan and openmausbot_run_routine_now exist, so clarity on the cancel-only scope would have been better.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like openmausbot_plan, openmausbot_run_routine_now, and openmausbot_delete_routine, it is critical to distinguish between canceling a scheduled run, planning a run, and deleting a routine. No usage context is provided, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name.

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