Cancel workflow run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds one genuinely useful nuance beyond that: 'Request' implies the cancellation is asynchronous and may not take effect immediately. It still omits idempotency, whether in-flight work is discarded, and permission requirements for a destructive 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the destructive/async action leads. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but as structure goes it is efficient and well-ordered.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and explicit destructive annotations, the description covers the essentials but leaves meaningful gaps: no outcome/return behavior, no note on whether a cancelled run can be resumed, and no routing to sibling cancel/get tools. Adequate, not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — the single workflowRunId parameter is documented with its 'vg_work_...' prefix format. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (cancel) and resource (workflow run) plus a scope qualifier ('in-progress'), which clearly distinguishes it from list/get workflow-run tools. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the nearby cancel_tool_execution sibling, which an agent could plausibly confuse for the same intent.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_workflow_run, list_workflow_runs, or cancel_tool_execution, and no prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., only pending/running runs can be cancelled). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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