powerswarm_cancel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: finished lanes retain their branches, so cancellation is partial rather than a full rollback. However, it omits whether the action is reversible, what happens to in-flight work, whether it errors on an already-terminated run, or whether it is idempotent.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key side effect, with no filler or redundancy. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action and one important side effect, which is adequate. It still lacks return/status behavior (does it confirm cancellation, return remaining lanes?) and precondition or error handling that an agent would need before invoking blindly.

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 0%, but there is only one parameter (run_id) and its meaning is self-evident from the name and tool context. The description adds no format, source, or lookup details for obtaining a valid run_id, so it neither compensates for the coverage gap nor introduces confusion.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Stop a run's workers,' which unambiguously identifies a cancellation operation keyed by run_id. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like powerswarm_status or powerswarm_run, but the action is clear enough that an agent can distinguish it from the other lifecycle tools by 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 alternatives such as powerswarm_status (to inspect before cancelling) or what preconditions must hold. The only usage signal is implied by the verb 'Stop,' leaving the agent to infer context for invocation.

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