Cancel tool execution

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds a modest but real nuance by saying 'Request' cancellation, implying best-effort/asynchronous behavior rather than guaranteed termination, and 'in-progress' bounds which executions are eligible — but it never states what happens to partial output or whether cancellation is final.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. It is borderline under-specified rather than over-concise — the brevity costs it the usage and behavioral detail it could have carried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the destructive profile. Still, for a mutation/cleanup tool the description lacks timing semantics (immediate vs deferred cancellation), idempotency, and any note on required permissions, leaving an agent with the minimum needed to invoke it.

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?

There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% (the schema documents the vg_tool_... id format), so the description's single sentence adds no parameter detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb (cancel) plus specific resource (tool execution), and it scopes the target to an in-progress execution, which distinguishes it from get_tool_execution/list_tool_executions. It does not, however, mention the near-identical sibling cancel_workflow_run, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With cancel_workflow_run sitting in the same toolset, the description offers nothing to route between cancelling a tool execution versus a workflow run, and no prerequisites (e.g. needing a live execution id) are stated.

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